JAGDISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code '). It is directed against the order dated - 2.6.1995 passed by Shri R.B.N. Sahay, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Roserain Tr. No. by which he 153/ 95 rejected the prayer of the petitioner to frame charge under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code against opposite second party.

(2.) FROM the prosecution case it appears that the petitioner lodged F.I.R. before Rosea police station against opposite second party alleging, inter alia, that all of them conspired together and opposite party no. 2 presenting himself to be the son of Mahanth Karm Jyoti executed a sale deed in favour of opposite party nos. 3 to 5 in collusion with opposite party nos. 6 to 8 for 10 Kathas 14 Dhurs of land recorded in the name of idol 0f Maniari Math. The police after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet against the opposite second under sections 419, 420, 423 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE petitioner has further contended that the learned trial court has committed grave error by coming to this conclusion. The witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner have clearly stated that Ram Nehora Jyoti was the Mahanth and before the execution of the sale deed by opposite party no. 2 all dispute over the Mahantship had ended. It is well settled that if any person pretending to be another person disposes of any property by registered sale deed an offence under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The allegation against opposite party no. 2 is that he is not the son of Mohanth Karm Jyoti rather the name of his father is late SobhaKant ha. By describing him self as the son of Mahanth Karn Jyoti while executing the sale deed he has clearly committed an offence punishable under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned court below failed to appreciate that the essential ingredients for constituting the offence punishable under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code were very much established. The learned court below should have taken into consideration that the sale deed (Ext. 2) was executed by opposite party no. 2 in the capacity of the son of late Mahanth Karm Jyoti. However, the learned court below was wrong in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner by passing the impugned order. It has, therefore, been prayed that the impugned order be quashed.