BRAHMDEO RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application at the instance of the petitioners herein seeks to question the propriety of the order dated 8.5.2004 passed by Shri Hemant Kumar Srivastava, learned Sessions Judge, Munger, Camp Court at Lakhisarai, in Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2001 whereby he has approved the order dated 30.8.2001 passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, in Lakhisarai PS. Case No. 402 of 1993, G.R. No. 1056 of 1993 whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the petition under sec. 239 of Cr.RC. filed by the petitioners herein for their discharge.

(2.) THE prosecution case is based on the complaint petition bearing No. 41C of 1993 filed by opposite party no. 2 herein which was transmitted to the concerned PS. under sec. 156(3) Cr.RC. and accordingly the aforesaid Lakhisarai RS. Case No. 402 of 1993 was registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 323 I.P.C. It was alleged therein, inter alia, that 16 decimals of land appertaining to Khata No. 292, Plot No. 53 in Mauja -Jainagar had been gifted by one Mostt. Sundari Devi to the complainant 'swife Smt. Akasho Devi by registered deed of gift dated 28.7.1979 and she came in exclusive possession thereof and her possession over the said lands was continuing even till today. However, the accused persons with ulterior motive prepared a fabricated deed of gift of the lands in question in favour of Naw Yuvak Durga Samiti and executed the same and on the basis thereof attempted to usurp the lands of his wife and also created a situation of breach of peace for which a proceeding under sec. 107 Cr.P.C. was initiated. It is said that the complainant and his wife for the first time came to know of the forged and fabricated deed of gift in the proceeding under Sec.107 Cr.P.C.

(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that from the materials available in the record including the case diary no commission of offences aforesaid can be said to have been made out so far as the petitioners are concerned and, accordingly, prayed for their discharge. But the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer and in revision before the Sessions Court the rejection order of the Magistrate was upheld.