NEELAM SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the complainant. Both these applications have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.P.Case No. 1827 of 2011 including the order dated 14.10.2011 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.

(2.) It is the case of the complainant that one Chandi Prasad Mahto who had executed a power of attorney in favour of complainant filed an application before the Circle Officer for issuance of a genealogical table. On that application Halka Karamchari, the petitioner, Dubai Murmu made an enquiry and submitted a report to the Circle Officer wherein it was shown that Budhu Mahto died leaving behind sole daughter Bhusia Mahatain. Subsequently, the Halka Karamchari at the instance of the co -accused Padam Lochan Mahto submitted another report on 12.9.2009 whereby it was shown that Budhu Mahto died leaving behind two daughters, Bhusia Mahatain and Domni Mahatain. The Circle Officer on getting the said report sent it to the department of Revenue. According to the complainant said report is false as Budhu Mahto had had only one daughter, Bhusia Mahatain whereas Domni Mahatain never happens to be the daughter of Budhu Mahto. On such allegation, complaint was registered as C.P.Case No. 1827 of 2011. On holding enquiry, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner, Dubai Murmu, the then Halka Karamchari, Dhanbad and also against the petitioner Nilam Sinha, the then Circle Inspector. That order is under challenge.

(3.) MR . Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Neelam Sinha has never been alleged to have prepared any report rather the second report dated 12.9.2009 had been prepared by the Circle Officer though the petitioner during enquiry had put signature over the genealogical table but accepting this fact to be true, no offence is made out against the petitioners.