RAJENDRA PRASAD MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 6.04.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Begusarai in complaint case no.69C/2002 taking cognizance under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the I.P.C.

(2.) THE complainant opposite party no.2 filed the aforesaid complaint case no.69C/2002 on 21.01.2002 in the court of learned Chief Justice Magistrate alleging therein that the accused persons hatched a conspiracy got Parcha of one Katha each prepared in the name of Maya Devi and Dhanterash Sharma out of plot no.3561. The signature of one fictitious person namely Binod Kumar, son of late Vishwanath Singh is there on the documents. Mukesh Kumar has sworn affidavit that he was the only son of late Vishwanath Singh. The petitioner in collusion with accused Ram Prakash Singh and Bholanath caused gain to accused Maya Devi and Dhanterash Sharma and issued Parcha on the basis of forged documents. In the schedule of the plaint, the details of the land has been given.

(3.) IN support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Sudhanshu Bhushan Ram and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2007 (2) PLJR 148.