The central legal point established in the judgment is the seriousness of fraudulent misrepresentation and the consequences of suppressing material facts in legal proceedings.

This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 05.12.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur in Complaint Case No.457C of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate finding prima-facie case for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the IPC took cognizance and summoned the petitioners.

2. Heard and perused the record.

3. The Opposite Party No.2 filed a complaint case on the file of CJM alleging inter-alia that these petitioners filed a title (Partition)Suit No.112 of 1986 against his parents and brothers and they in collusion with each other obtained a compromise decree by committing fraud and forgery. The father of Opposite Party No.2 was one of the co-sharer having 1/5th share in the suit property. But he was neither impleaded as party to the suit nor the plaintiff made any averment about his existence in the plaint of P.S.No.112 of 1986 and so the petitioners have committed fraud and forgery.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute. The father of the Opposite Party No.2 was separated by his parents and brothers giving him due share at village Nakhas Pind, Patna City as per his desire and consent of other co-sharers besides some cash amount for construction of building at Nakhas Pind, Patna City. The grand mother of the complainant had some land at her Maike and she executed a deed of gift in the name of complainant’s father by way of adjustment to the share of Satyendra Kumar. Since the father of complainant was given share at Patna City, he was not impleaded as party to the suit. The present case has been filed by the complainant after the death of his father and grand father which shows the case has been filed maliciously in the background of civil dispute. The learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order in mechanical manner without appreciating the fact that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and so the impugned order is fit to be quashed. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 opposed the submissions.

5. Perused the complaint petition, documents on record as well as the counter affidavit. It appears that the petitioner no.1 as sole plaintiff filed Title Suit No.112 of 1986 against his two brothers and parents alleging that the property mentioned in schedule A and B were his ancestral property and the same came in exclusive share of his father on partition from his full brother. In the said partition suit, the Opposite Party No.1 was not made party. There is absolutely no averment about the existence of the father of Opposite Party No.2. It has been simply stated that the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint were in joint possession and were sought to be partitioned between the three brothers and their parents. The father of Opposite Party No.2 admittedly was one of co-parcener. He has been deprived from the said property only for the reason that some property was bequeathed by his maternal-grandmother at Patna City. The matter would have been otherwise if the plaintiff had disclosed this fact in the plaint. He was necessary party to the suit. This is not a case of nor joinder of necessary party rather this is a case of suppression of fact and obtaining a decree fraudulently by misrepresenting the Court. The father of Opposite Party No.2 had right in the properties which were partitioned among the three brothers and parents excluding the father of Opposite Party No.2. The petitioner no.1 filed Cr.Misc.No.769 of 2010 before this Court for setting aside the order of Sub-Judge passed in Cr.Misc.No.4 of 2006. This Court while rejecting the revision of petitioner no.1 has observed at paras-13 and 14 of the order as follows:-

“13. In the present case the fact of Surendra Kumar @ Satyapal Verma as one more son of Chandeshwar Prasad Singh and thus a coparcener having a share in the suit property had be