HIRA LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS quashing application has been filed against the order of cognizance dated 23.12.1995.

(2.) PETITIONER 's lawyer submitted that as alleged one Pramod Yas, the informant, had filed a written report to the police alleging therein that he was the adopted son of one Kamla Devi, who had created a will in his favour. Although the said Kamla Devi had a sister named Mani Kunwar, she had created a will in his favour and so he was the sole proprietor of the property of Kamla Devi, the deceased. He had also got his name mutated over the property in question. However, some fake persons executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners of this miscellaneous case and thus committed forgery regarding the alleged sale deed. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police investigated the case after its institution. During the course of investigation, the Superintendent of Police and some Dy. Superintendent of Police after supervising the case directed the Investigating Officer to submit final report, but still the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet on the basis of which the court concerned took cognizance under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

(3.) IT is also mysterious and surprising as to why the alleged executants of the sale deed were not prosecuted in this case. So I am of the opinion that without prosecution of the alleged executant, the criminal case in question was misdirected and the real culprits and offenders shall not be punished. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions and findings, I am of the opinion that there was no case at aril on the basis of which, the petitioners could be prosecuted for the offences as mentioned in the cognizance order. Hence, I think it is a fit case in which this Court must interfere.