RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioners, in the present case, are seeking quashing of the order dated 23.04.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawada in Complaint Case No. 518/2004 arising out of a protest petition filed by the Complainant-Opposite Party no. 2 for the offences alleged under Sections 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially the Complainant-Opposite Party no. 2 lodged a Complaint Case No. 334/2000 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada which was referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registering a First Information Report giving rise to Kashichak P.S. Case No. 35/2000 under Sections 302, 201, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners.

3. The informant alleged that while the informant was living at Patna, his brother namely, Ram Lakhan Singh and family of his late brother Tanik Singh were living in the village. The informant alleged that his brother Ram Lakhan Singh was an educated person and after getting training from the Health Department was working in the village also. Family of Tanik Singh was indulged in flirting of said Ram Lakhan Singh. It is alleged that in past Ram Lakhan Singh had sold some of his land to other persons of the village through sale deed on which the informant also signed. The informant was separate in mess and business with his brothers and he was in possession of his share of land which he was cultivating.

4. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that because there was no legal heir of said Ram Lakhan Singh, the family of another brother Late Tanik Singh had their greedy eyes over the properties of Ram Lakhan Singh and they wanted that somehow or the other his land come to them.

5. The informant allegedly got information on 29.04.2000 from an unknown person of his village that his brother Ram Lakhan Singh has been murdered and the dead body is in the process of cremation. The informant tried to know the name of person who had telephoned him but the said person refused to disclose his name. It is alleged that the person who had telephoned the informant also told him that the dead body will be cremated on the bank of river Ganga near Barahiya and further told him that he was the well-wisher of the informant and the telephone line was disconnected thereafter. It is alleged that on 30.04.2000, the informant reached near Barahiya Ghat but after not finding anybody there he came back to the village where informant came to know that the accused persons had burnt the dead body at Simariya Ghat because Ram Lakhan Singh being an issueless and aged person, many villagers had assembled and thereafter the dead body was cremated at Simariya Ghat. The informant alleged that the accused persons acted in conspiracy and on 28.04.2000 itself, they got thumb impression of Ram Lakhan Singh on some stamp papers and on which Ram Chandra Singh, son of Late Ram Lakhan Singh had put his signature as ‘Bakalam Khas’. The informant also came to know that on the said paper a forged sale deed was created on 29.04.2000 and by placing somebody else in place of Ram Lakhan Singh the execution was admitted. It is further alleged that forged sale deed has been obtained in respect of the land of the informant and in order to avoid disclosure of these facts the said Ram Lakhan Singh was murdered and his dead body was disposed of on the same day in haste. The informant thereafter claimed that he performed the last rites of Ram Lakhan Singh in the village, obtained a copy of the sale deed from the registry office and after finishing the Shradh ceremony, he lodged the case in question. A copy of the First Information Report is available on record as Annexure-1.

6. On behalf of the petitioners, materials have been placed in form of affidavit and order passed in the court of learned Magistrate showing that after investigation police submitted a final form on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document