Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 119 (PAT)

Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2006-02-01

REKHA KUMARI

body2006
Judgment Rekha Kumari, J. 1. This is an application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 15-5-2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda in Silao P. S. Case No. 328/2000 by which he has take cognizance under Sections 420, 467, 468. 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and ordered to issue summons against the petitioner. 2. Heard. 3. It appears that the petitioner filed a petition on 16-5-2000 before the D.C.L.R., Rajgir stating therein that the ex-landlord has settled a land measuring 42.50 acre of Mauza Ujarpur, Khata No. 44 Plot No. 570 through Hukumnama in the name of his father Nanda Mahto on 2-11-1932. The Ex-landlord thereafter issued rent receipts in the name of his father. After vesting of Jamindari, return was filed in his fathers name, and accordingly his fathers name was entered into Register II. The Anchal Adhikari then after receipt of the rent granted rent receipts in the name of his father. After the death of his father the petitioner was granted rent receipt for 1997-98. It was further stated therein that the petitioner learnt that the Government wanted to give the land to arms factory treating the same to be Gair Majarua land and thereby depriving him of compensation. The petitioner hence prayed that he was ready to pay the rent due and so rent receipts be issued after receiving the rent due so that he may get compensation. 4. In the above petition, the petitioner enclosed the photo copy of Hukumnama, photo copy of rent receipts for the year 1988-89 and 1997-98 of Jamabandi No. 217 and rent receipts issued by the landlord, photo copy of Register II, order of Jamabandi Case No. 34 of 1956-57. On enquiry, however, it was found that the above documents were spurious and that the petitioner never had possession of the land. 5. The Anchal Adhikari hence filed a written report before the O/C, Rajgir Rs. for taking action against the petitioner and on the basis of the written report formal FIR was drawn up against the petitioner under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 the Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for commission of the offences mentioned above. The learned C.J.M. after perusing the FIR, charge-sheet and the case diary passed the impugned order. 6. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 the Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for commission of the offences mentioned above. The learned C.J.M. after perusing the FIR, charge-sheet and the case diary passed the impugned order. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no sufficient material in the case diary that the documents are not genuine. The petitioner has also filed Title Suit No. 96/2001 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Nalanda for declaration of title on the land and that the petitioner is entitled to receive the amount of compensation. The S.D.O., Rajgir also sought for certain information from the Circle Officer in respect of the land and after enquiry, the Circle Officer submitted the report on 8-3-2001 which indicates that without valid reason the FIR was lodged. 7. It is well settled that at the stage of cognizance and issuance of process, the Magistrate has only to see whether the FIR discloses an offence and whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Magistrate at this stage is not to appreciate the evidence meticulously. The FIR of the instant case shows that the allegations made therein disclosed criminal offence. The impugned order shows that the learned C.J.M. after perusing the case diary has found a prima facie case under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 . 8. Therefore, I do not find any reasonable ground to Interfere with the order. As regards filing of title suit, that is no ground to set aside the order. Again, as per the subsequent report of the Circle Officer the same cannot be treated as evidence without being tested. Hence, cannot be acted upon by the High Court. 9. In the result, there being no merit in this application, this criminal miscellaneous case stands dismissed.