Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1192 (PAT)

Girish Narain v. State of Bihar

2006-12-05

body2006
ORDER Heard. 2. This is an application for quashing the order dated 10.4.2006 passed by Sri B. Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 581 (C)/1992 whereby he has refused to discharge the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 467 and some allied Sections of Indian Penal Code. 3. The complainant Ram lal Sah, as per his case, had purchased three kathas of land from Tulsi Paswan through Registered sale-deed dated 21.2.1978 in Plot No. 85, Khata No. 176, Mouza Dasaratha, P.S. Phulwarisharif in the district of Patna. Thereafter, the complainant sold one and half kathas of land of the said plot to the petitioner No.1 Girish Narayan through Registered sale deed dated 3.3.1979. The petitioner Girish Narayan could mange to obtain the aforesaid sale-deed as also the other sale-deed in respect of the other one & half kathas of land from the complainant on some pre-text and ultimately deposited the said deeds with Punjab National Bank. The petitioner obtained such sale-deeds from the complainant for the purpose of its mutation proceeding, but he never returned those deeds to the complainant. In the year 1990 the complainant gathered that loan was obtained showing Ashok Kumar as loanee and the complainant Ram Lal Sah, Petitioner Girish Narayan and Nand Kishore Prasad as guarantor. On verification it was found to be true, but the accused persons threatened him of dire consequences and also demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant. On enquiry, it was found that it was a case of forgery. 4. Contention has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners that it is a case of civil nature litigation and no criminal prosecution is entertainable. The petitioner had also earlier moved for quashing of the cognizance order which was dismissed by a Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.1805/2003. 5. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 has submitted that the learned Magistrate after holding an enquiry found sufficient ground for proceeding of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 419, 402, 420 & 120B of Indian Penal Code. The earlier petition filed by the petitioners for quashing the cognizance order was dismissed by Justice Navin Sinha, J on 1.4.2004. 6. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any material for interference in the impugned order which is, accordingly, dismissed. The earlier petition filed by the petitioners for quashing the cognizance order was dismissed by Justice Navin Sinha, J on 1.4.2004. 6. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any material for interference in the impugned order which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the trial court without being influenced by this order will consider the defence of the petitioners in right perspective in the appropriate stage of the trial.