LAWS(PAT)-2010-4-430

GANESH PRASAD DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 22, 2010
GANESH PRASAD DAS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 26.6.1998 passed by Sri K.N. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rosera in Complaint Case No.25 of 1998/T.R. No.570 of 1998. By the said order, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 420/34, 467/34 and 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the complainant filed a complaint case alleging therein that petitioners in the garb of transferring a piece of land after taking considering money fraudulently executed a sale deed in respect of the land of the complainant itself. After obtaining the certified copy of the sale deed from the registry office, this fact came to the notice of the complainant and thereafter, complaint case was filed. In the complaint case, after examination of complainant on S.A.,two witnesses were also examined, who supported the case of complainant and after being satisfied with the materials available on record, the learned Magistrate, byits order dated 26.6.1998, took cognizance for the offences under Sections 420/34, 467/34 and 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance,has firstly submitted that alleged execution or fraud was committed long back in the year 1990 and as such after expiry of eight years, the court has incorrectly taken cognizance in the case. He submits that order of cognizance was barred under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that along with the complaint petition,the complainant had not produced any document in support of its case. However, from the impugned order, it is evident that during the enquiry stage, the complainant had also brought certain records/documents besides the evidence of two witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the same dispute, there is one title suit pending before the competent court.