Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 680 (PAT)

Upendra Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2003-07-08

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment 1. By the Court. Opposite Party No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 812 of 1999 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa. Allegation made in the complaint petition was that when she filed Title Suit No. 48 of 1996 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Saharsa, petitioners during the trial produced forged sale-deed. Learned Magistrate examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and after enquiry took cognizance of the offence under Sections 407, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons against the petitioners. 2. Aggrieved by the same petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2000 and the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa by order dated 4.1.2001 dismissed the revision application. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, petitioners have preferred this application and pray for quashing of the order dated 27.11.1999 passed by the learned Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 812 of 1999 issuing process and the order of the revisional Court dismissing the revision application, referred to above. 4. However, when the matter is taken up Mr. R.Mukund, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners prays to convert this application into an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prayer is allowed and this application is being considered under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Mr. Mukund submits that the allegation against the petitioners is of forging a sale deed which was the subject matter of adjudication in Title Suit No. 48 of 1996. He points out that Subordinate Judge, Saharsa by judgment and decree dated 27.7.1998 had held the sale deed to be valid and genuine. In the said suit it has been observed as follows : No step has been taken by the plaintiffs to get compared the L.T.I. by examining expert on this point. Hence, I hold that the plaintiffs have failed to discharge their onus on this point and I have no other option than to hold that the Ext. C the sale deed of the year 1954 is valid and genuine and through which the plaintiff No. 1 sold 2 Bigha 9 Katha 5 Dhur of land from the suit land." 6. Mr. C the sale deed of the year 1954 is valid and genuine and through which the plaintiff No. 1 sold 2 Bigha 9 Katha 5 Dhur of land from the suit land." 6. Mr. Vinoy Kirti Singh appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the aforesaid fact but submits that the complainant has preferred First Appeal No. 39 of 1996 before this Court and the said appeal has been admitted for hearing. 7. In view of the finding of the civil court in the suit referred to above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution of the petitioners shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. However, any observation made herein shall have no bearing in the first appeal filed by the complainant. 8. In the result, the application is allowed and the prosecution of the petitioners in complaint case No. 812 of 1999 is quashed so also the order issuing process and the order dismissing the revision.