IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.10029 of 2008 Usha Sahai, Widow of Late Shyam Nandan Prasad @ Lal, Resident of village – Bishunpur, P.S. – Town, District – Begusarai. ………………….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Chandra Kala Devi, wife of Brijnandan Prasad. 3. Brijnandan Prasad Sinha, Son of Late Yadunandan Pd. 4. Sunaina Sinha, wife of Awadh Kishore Prasad. 5. Awadh Kishore Prasad, Son of Jaideo Pd. Sinha. 6. Girish Kumar, Son of Brijnandan Prasad. All resident of village – Bishunpur, P.S. – Begusarai, District – Begusari. 7. Mani Mohan Prasad, Son of Ram Chandra Pd., Begusarai – Deed Writer. 8. Deed Writer – Radha Shyam Prasad, Son of Ram Chandra Pd. Of village – Mohammadpur, P.S. – Town Thana, District – Begusarai. 9. Janardan Singh, Son of Ram Kishun Singh of village – Ratanpur, P.S. – Town, District – Begusarai. ………….. Opp. Parties. ----------- 03/ 14.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is a petition for quashing the order dated 20.03.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge FTC III, Begusarai in Cr. Revision No. 224 of 1992 whereby and whereunder he has dismissed the revision petition of this petitioner against the order rejecting the petition under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C for adding Sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in the charge. The case of the petitioner is that the case was instituted under Sections 419, 420, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that a sale deed was executed by one Smt. Usha Sahay in favour of the accused person and there is recital in the sale deed 2001 about the consideration amount and the allegation is that without paying consideration amount the sale 2 deed was alleged to be executed under wrong impression. However, whatever allegation made does not come under the purview of forged document under Section 464 to attract 465 and 470 of the Indian Penal Code. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below has gone into detail of the matter and held that the petition has been filed only to delay and frustrate the disposal of a case and the learned Court below has also found that from the statement of the witnesses coupled with the document, by no means, a case under Section 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)