URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. There is none on behalf of learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in spite of earlier appearance.

(2.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 13.04.2006 passed by Girish Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj, in G.R. No. 2658/2004 Tr. No. 2838/2006 in Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 412/2004 taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case in brief is that one Sheo Kumar Pathak had three sons Krishna Mohan Pathak petitioner no.2, Paras Nath Pathak opposite party no.2 and Triyogi Narayan Pathak. There is one registered deed of gift executed on 13.08.2003 in the name of Sheo Kumar Pathak in favour of petitioner no.1 who is none else than petitioner no.2. The deed in question was ascribed by petitioner no.5 and petitioner nos. 3 and 4 appeared as witnesses.