Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 774 (PAT)

Rajiv Bajaj v. State of Bihar

2014-07-14

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2014
ORAL ORDER The Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 19.4.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Complaint case No.204 of 2014, by which he has taken cognizance in the matter. 2. The case of the Sub Judge Vth, Begusarai i.e. the Complainant was that the accused persons filed a vakalatnama and Authority letter with scanned signature of Petitioner No.2 in Title Suit No.464 of 2013 which in his opinion had been done “with an intention of deceive the Court in a dishonest and fraudulent manner and also to gain wrongfully and cause loss wrongfully to the plaintiff which has affected the administration of justice and misled the court with intent to commit fraud by making and producing false and fabricated documents using as genuine deliberately” and, therefore, they should be prosecuted. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners explains that fact of the matter is that a Title Suit was instituted at Begusarai, whereas the Petitioners reside in Pune and to expedite their appearance scanned Vakalatnamas and other documents with signature were sent by Petitioners No.1 and 2, which were filed in the proceeding. Soon thereafter a regular Vakalatnama was executed by these two Petitioners along with rest of the Petitioners. It was then the present Complaint was filed on the prayer of the plaintiff. 4. It has rightly been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that in the facts of the case even conceding that scanned vakalatnama was not permitted in law, no criminal offence would be made out and at best it could be ignored. The further submission of the Petitioners is that in the circumstances of the case when the alleged forgery, which is strongly disputed, was committed even before the document was filed in the Court, the provision of Section 340 Cr.P.C. would have no application. 5. On the other hand, the Counsel for the plaintiff submits that since there is no provision for scanned vakalatnama it was for rightful reason that the Court instituted the present Complaint. 6. 5. On the other hand, the Counsel for the plaintiff submits that since there is no provision for scanned vakalatnama it was for rightful reason that the Court instituted the present Complaint. 6. Having gone through the facts of the case, I am inclined to agree with the submissions raised on behalf of the Petitioners that the provision of Section 340 Cr.P.C. will have no application in the circumstances of the present case and if at all there was no provision for the scanned vakalatnama it could very well have been ignored by the Court and there was no justification for initiating the present Complaint on such a ground. 7. In view of such, the present application is allowed and the entire proceeding of Complaint case No.204 of 2014 including the order dated 19.4.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Complaint case No.204 of 2014 is quashed.