ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A. P. P, appearing for the State.

(2.) THIS application has been filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the order dated 4-6-2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Giridih in Complaint Case no. 1212 of 2006 (T. R. No. 618 of 2007/404 of 2008) whereby and whereunder, the court took cognizance of the offences under sections 465/471/120b of Indian Penal Code against these petitioners and others.

(3.) THE facts giving rise to this application are that the complainant-opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint before learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Giridih stating therein that one Bishwanath Agrawal died in the year 1994 leaving behind the complainant and petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and also one anil Kumar Agrawal as his sons as well as his widow (petitioner No. 3) and three married daughters as co-owners of the movable and immovable property situated at Giridih. The further case is that in the year 1997, the petitioners filed a title partition suit on a false plea that the opposite party No. 2 complainant has already been given his share in the property situated at Dhanbad, but in fact the property at Dhanbad was never the part of the joint family property. However, in the said partition suit, though the opposite party No. 2 complainant was made party but no summon was ever issued and it happened so that in the year 1998, a joint compromise petition was filed on the basis of which decree was passed to which the opposite party No. 2 was kept in dark and in the year 2006 when the opposite party No. 2 asked his other brothers-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for partition of the property, they disclosed to him that the property has already been partitioned by the decree passed in title Partition Suit No. 47 of 1997. Upon it, when the inquiry was made, it was detected that one Vakalatnama in the name of the opposite party No. 2 had been filed and his signature was also there over the compromise petition, wherein it has been stated that the opposite party No. 2 has got no right, title and interest over the immovable property situated at Giridih but in fact he had no occasion to put his signature over the compromise petition and as such it appears that somebody by impersonating the complainant-the opposite party No. 2 put his signature on the Vakalatnama as well as on the compromise petition, which was identified by one Digamber Mohan Sinha and were produced before the court below on the basis of which decree was passed and thereby the complainant was denied his due share in the joint family property.