ANNAPURNA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Maya Nand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(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 5.1.2008 passed in Surajgarha P.S. Case No.210 of 2007/G.R. Case No.865 of 2007, whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the order of cognizance, submits that no offence is made out even on the basis of F.I.R. itself. It was submitted that petitioners and informant of the case were co-sharers and allegation was made that the petitioners had sold lands in excess to their share and as such it was submitted that it was clear cut dispute of civil nature, for which the informant may not be allowed to proceed with the criminal case against the petitioners. It was submitted that for such dispute, civil case has also been instituted and matter is still pending. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if on perusal cf the F.I.R. no offence is made out, the court, while exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may interfere with the case at initial stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his argument, has relied on Apex Court judgment (Mohammed Ibrahim and others V/s. State of Bihar and another, 2009 8 SCC 751) and (Devendra and others V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2009 7 SCC 495). While referring to Md. Md. Ibrahim's case , learned counsel for the petitioners has specifically relied on paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment, which are quoted herein below :