Jeevachh Paswan And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15836 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1773 Year- 2007 Thana -SAHARSA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSAHARSA ======================================================

1. Jeevachh Paswan, S/o Janak Paswan,

2. Tuntun Paswan S/o Late Tarni Paswan,

3. Kailash Paswan S/o Late Shankar Paswan, All are R/o Village- Bhamri Dhanupura, P.S.- Simri Bakhtiyarpur (O.P. Kanariya), District- Saharsa.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Shobha Kant Paswan S/o Sitambar Paswan, R/o Village- Bhamri Dhanupura, P.S.- Simri Bakhtiyarpur (O.P. Kanariya), District- Saharsa. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 01-11-2018 This application has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 23.12.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Saharsa in Complaint Case No.C1773C/2007, arising out of a Criminal Case Complaint (P)- 0001431/15). By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has been pleased to reject the application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court through the contents of the impugned order and submits that it is a case of civil nature, but has been falsely given the colour of a criminal proceeding. Learned counsel submits that the learned Magistrate has himself recorded in the impugned order that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15836 of 2018 (3) dt.01-11-2018 accused petitioners have claimed that they have purchased the land and in support of their claim they have filed unregistered sale-deed executed by Hari Nandan Singh in the year 1943. It is submitted that, if this is the position, then it cannot be said that the petitioners had indulged in forging the sale-deed and the rent receipts.

This Court finds that the petitioners are accused in a complaint case in which the evidence before charge has been recorded, but the materials which have come in course of evidence before charge have not been brought to the notice of this Court by filing the same on record. In these circumstances, while, at the first instance, it is not possible for this Court to look into the veracity of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the same time, it is not possible to take a different view, at this stage, when the learned Magistrate, on perusal of the records, referring to the various aspects of the matter, has held that in the present case there are materials available for framing of charge.

Learned counsel for the State is present, in the given facts and circumstances, this application is dismissed. Arvind/- (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) U T