BHAGWAT YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Twenty petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.4.1999 passed in G.R. No.16 of 1997(Kishanpur P.S.Case No.111 of 1996) by Shri C. Ram, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Supaul. By the said order the learned Magistrate has framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under sections 468, 465, 469 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, alleging therein that the accused persons conspiring with each other prepared forged adoption deed only with a view to dispossess the complainant from the property/landed property which she shall be entitled to get after partition. The said complaint was transferred to the police for its registration and investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, first information report vide Kishanpur P.S. Case No.111 of 1996 was registered for the offences under sections 465, 467, 468, 469 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. After registering the case, the police investigated the same and thereafter charge sheet was submitted. After submission of the charge sheet, by order dated 21.5.1998 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, as mentioned above, and finally by the impugned order charges were framed against the petitioners. Aggrieved with the order of framing of charge, the accused persons preferred the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that even though there is no material on the record to connect the petitioners, the learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner has passed the order of framing of charge by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to paragraph 12 of the present petition, submits that it was a case of exaggeration. He submits that on the allegation of preparing forged adoption deed about twenty persons have been made accused. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners such allegation prima facie appears to be improbable. Learned counsel has also referred to paragraph 14 of the petition and submits that when the informant lost the mutation case for the land in question, the present complaint was filed by her maliciously and accordingly he has prayed for quashing of the order of framing of charge.