MANJU KUMARI Vs. SHAILENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Neither any one appeared on behalf of the Petitioners or on behalf of opposite party No. 1. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of the State.

(2.) Three Petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 13.2.2001 passed by Sri B.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1695(C) of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for summoning the Petitioners.

(3.) Short fact of the case is that opposite party No. 2, wife of Petitioner No. 1, filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 1695(C) of 2000. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that Petitioner No. 1 had filed a case vide Case No. 13 M of 1995 before the Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the complainant in which other two accused persons were examined as witnesses. It was alleged that in the said proceeding, the accused persons, in order to get favourable order, had filed certified copy of Khatiyan purported to be in the name of Ram Autar Village Sohagi, Police Station Phulwari, while complainant's village was Rampur Gaurichak. It was alleged that accused persons mis-represented in the court and filed Khatiyan of a different person. On that allegation, complaint was filed for offence under Sections 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against all the three Petitioners. After filing the complaint and examining the complainant on solemn affirmation and perusing some documents, during the enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code.