JAMIL AKHTAR JAVED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

(2.) BY this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution launched against them in Trial No. 638 of 1996 under sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that even in the face of the complaint petition it would appear that the deed of agreement which was already copied out by the Registrar and he was the custodian of the same was alleged to have been interpolated by petitioner no.1. Learned counsel further submitted that it would also manifestly appear from the complaint petition itself that there were certain interpolations in the deed of agreement which had formed part of the plaint filed by petitioner no.1 in Title Suit No. 200 of 1995. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that since the registrar Motihari was custodian of the deed of agreement and since certain interpolations were made in the deed of agreement which was part and parcel of the plaint of Title Suit No.200 of 1995, the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable. In such circumstances, the complaint, if any, could have been filed either by the Registrar or by Subordinate Judge, Motihari who was seised with the Title Suit aforesaid.