- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
(2.) 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. 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 tobe 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. 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.
(3.) AS against that, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that earlier on an application of Chandi Prasad Mahto, a genealogical table was prepared on the basis of the said report submitted by the petitioner (Dubai Murmu) wherein Bhusia Mahatain was shown to have died leaving behind one daughter whereas in the second report, though it has been prepared by the Circle Officer but that report had been prepared on the basis of genealogical table over which the petitioner (Neelam Sinha) has also put his signature wherein it has been shown that Budhu Mahto died leaving behind Bhusia Mahatain and Domni Mahatain and this report was prepared in connivance with other accused person so that other accused person may lay claim over the land of the complainant. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that earlier when a report was submitted by the petitioner(Dubai Murmu) Bhusia Mahatain was shown to be the sole daughter of Budhu Mahto whereas in the second report which though had not been prepared by the petitioner (Dubai Murmu) but was prepared by the Circle Officer, Dhanbad. wherein it has been shown that Budhu Mahto had two daughters namely, Bhusia Mahatain and Domni Mahatain. The said report though has not been prepared by the petitioner (Dubai Murmu) but there has been signature over the genealogical table of the petitioner Nilam Sinha on the basis of which report dated 12.9.2009 was prepared by the Circle Officer. Accepting all these allegations to be true, it is to be considered as to whether any offence of forgery is made out or not ?;