Atmanand Sharma v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32325 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1866 Year-2016 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- West Champaran ====================================================== Atmanand Sharma S/o Anand Shankar Sharma, R/o Vill.- Shikarpur, P.S.- Majhaulia, District- West Champaran, at Present residing at BLK-118, 021190, Hougang Avenue 1, P.S.- Haugang Singapore-530118. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

State Of Bihar and Anr 2.

Santosh Pandey S/o Late Anirudh Pandey, R/o Vill.- Shikarpur, P.S.- Majhaulia, District- West Champaran.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shakti Suman Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sri Uma Shankar Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-08-2023 Learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that one of the co-accused Anand Shankar Sharma has already died.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3. This application is filed for quashing of the order dated 04/02/2017 passed in Tr. No. 856/2017 arising out of complaint case no. 1866-C/16 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st Bettiah whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. As per the prosecution story, the allegation against

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32325 of 2018(4) dt.07-08-2023 2/2 the petitioner is forging the documents of the sale deed.

5. The ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing is that the petitioner was not present in Indian on the alleged date of occurrence. He was an ivory coast from 11.10.2015 to 10.12.2015 and this fact is supported by the entries in the passport of the petitioner which has been annexed as Annexure-5 series.

6. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 cannot deny the submission of the petitioner.

7. A person who is not in India cannot be prosecuted for an alleged offence said to have been committed in his absence. This application is allowed.

8. Accordingly, the order dated 04/02/2017 passed in Tr. No. 856/2017 arising out of complaint case no. 1866-C/16 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st Bettiah is hereby quashed.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Sunnykr/- U T