NIRMALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EIGHT 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 5.5.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No.454 of 1998, G.R.No.1436 of 1998/ Tr.No.1065 of 1999, whereby after submission of the chargesheet , the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) SHORT fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 had initially filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram , Rohtas , which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 21 of 1998 against all the petitioners and Manrajo Devi . After filing of the complaint, it was sent to the police for its registration and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, an F.I.R. vide Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No. 454 of 1998 was registered on 10.9.1998 for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons. As per the F.I.R., the informant/ complainant had purchased in his wifes name two Kathas of land, appertaining to Khata No.23, Plot No.322 at Mauja Pali , Dehari, District- Rohtas from one Most. Lakhpato Kunwar Wife of Late Babu Lal Singh through registered deed dated 27.12.1967 and thereafter he came in peaceful possession over the land in question. It further appears that after the death of Most Lakhpato Kunwar, her two daughters, namely, Sukiya Devi (petitioner no.6) and Manrajo Devi in connivance with other accused persons started talking for getting the said land transferred and finally by committing fraud and cheating, accused persons got a deed executed and finally petitioner nos.1 to 4 got the sale deed executed in their favour on 25.11.1997 vide Sale deed nos.12847, 12848 and 12849. It was alleged that petitioner nos.7 and 8 had become witnesses to the sale deed. Further allegation of the informant in the present case is that while accused persons on the basis of the said forged sale deed came to claim over the land in question, accused persons were requested to get sale deed cancelled. However, no step was taken by accused persons and thereafter the complainant finally went to the police and, thereafter, filed a complaint petition, which was referred to the police and F.I.R. was registered. After registering the First Information Report, the police investigated the case and, thereafter, chargesheet was submitted. After submission of the chargesheet , the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram by the impugned order has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the petition stands rejected.