Shobha Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11559 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1946 Year-2017 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPurnia ====================================================== 1.

SHOBHA DEVI Wife of Jaynarayan Paswan Resident of VillageMirjachouri, Haripurmadi, P.S.- Banmankhi, District- Purnea. 2.

Jaynarayan Paswan Son of Late Basudev Paswan @ Baldeo Paswan Resident of Village- Mirjachouri, Haripurmadi, P.S.- Banmankhi, DistrictPurnea. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Badami Devi Wife of Late Dev Narayan Paswan Resident of VillageMirjachouri, P.S.- Banmankhi, District- Purnea. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shivnandan Sah, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

For the Informant :

Md. Fazle Karim, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 22-09-2022 This application is filed for quashing of the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by learned C.J.M., Purnea whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 1946 of 2017.

The allegation as per complaint petition is that the coaccused who is sister of the complainant also sold share of the complainant to the petitioner. The complainant obtained a certified copy of the sale deed. In that certified copy the description of the land of the complainant was not mentioned.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11559 of 2021(4) dt.22-09-2022 2/2 After committing forgery the page of the sale deed was changed and the share of the complainant was also shown in that sale deed by making forgery.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the mutation was done by the DCLR in favour of the petitioners. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that there is specific allegation of forgery.

The certified copy taken by the complainant shows itself that the pages were changed and by committing forgery in those papers the share of the complainant was also shown as part of the sale deed. Though the complaint petition was initially dismissed but the revisional authority after setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint allowed the revision mentioning that the Judicial Magistrate has not given attention on the documentary evidence filed by the complainant. In my view, it is not a fit case for quashing of the order of cognizance. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T