Bhrigu Nandan Mishra @ Bhrigu Nandan Jha v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30952 of 2014 Arising out of P.S. Case No.20 Year 2013 Thana MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMUNGER =========================================================== Bhrigu Nandan Mishra @ Bhrigu Nandan Jha S/o late Kusheshwar Mishra resident of village- Sanhauli, P.S.- Sangrampur, District- Munger .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Most. Polo Devi Wife of late Upendra Sharma resident of village- Rajguru Tarapur, P.S.- Tarapur, District- Munger .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP For O.P. No.2 :

Mr. S. Ranjan, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 30-10-2017 This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 11.02.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger in Complaint Case No.20(C)/2013 thereby taking cognizance of offence under Sections 419, 465 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that one Kabutari Devi impersonating the complainant sold her land to Krishnadeo Mandal in conspiracy with rest other accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a practicing advocate, he only drafted the sale deed and discharged his professional duty. He is not in any way concerned with the conspiracy as he did not identify personally Polo Devi or Kabutari

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30952 of 2014 dt.30-10-2017 2 /2 Devi whereas learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the prayer by submitting that there is sufficient material for taking cognizance of the offence.

4. It appears that the sale deed has not been brought on record by the petitioner in order to show whether the petitioner was identifier or the witness of the sale deed, so the Court is not inclined to interfere with the cognizance order. The petitioner may raise this point at the appropriate stage for discharge from the case and may take the ground before the trial court in order to show that no case against the petitioner is made out even taking into account all the evidence referred to in Section 244 Cr.P.C.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the quashing application stands dismissed.

(Arun Kumar, J.) S.Kumar/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 01.11.2017 Transmission Date 01.11.2017