The main legal point established is that a complaint filed with ulterior motives, unexplained delay, and unsupported allegations of forgery can be quashed by the court.

JUDGMENT :

ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN, J.

1. This quashing application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purnea in Cr. Revision No. 192 of 2015 by which he had set aside the order dismissing the complaint at pre-summoning stage for non-prosecution and consequential order dated 24.08.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 822 of 2015 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, whereby the learned court below has taken cognizance for offence under Section 466, 468, 471 read with 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons for appearance of the petitioner and other accused persons.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, is that a complaint was filed on 01.03.2015 in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea by the complainant Ratan Prasad claiming herself to be an educated lady for an incident said to have been committed on 19.12.2008, wherein she has alleged that accused no. 1 is a practicing lawyer of Patna High Court and accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were partners of Chitrawani Cinema and in the partnership firm they were running the cinema hall at Bhatta Bazar in the name and style of Purnea Takies. It is alleged in the complaint that the partners of Purnea Talkies had availed loan facility from Gulabbagh Branch of State Bank of India and defaulted in making repayment of the loan amount and consequently some of the properties of Cinema Hall was sold by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in the year 2002 by public auction and the complainant had purchased a piece of land in the said auction. The complainant was handed over delivery of possession in February, 2008, pursuant to order passed by this Court. The sale certificate and confirmation of sale were enclosed as Annexure-1 and 2. It is further alleged in the complaint that after delivery of possession, accused no. 2 to 4 entered into a criminal conspiracy with others to cause harm to the complainant and started to prepare forge document and spread incorrect rumor. In the meantime, accused nos. 2 to 4 filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, which was registered as Appeal No. 05 of 2008. It is further alleged that the accused nos. 2 to 4 entered into a conspiracy with accused no. 1 for fulfillment of their improper motive, prepared a forged order dated 19.12.2008 in the name of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna and accused no. 1 got the said forged order communicated through registered post vide his letter dated 03.01.2019. The forged order dated 19.12.2008, letter dated 03.01.2009 and registered envelope were enclosed as Annexures-3, 4 and 5. The accused persons by sending forged order and letter made the complainant brief that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna had passed order dated 19.12.2008 in Appeal No. 05 of 2008 against the complainant and others granting status quo till the next date of hearing. The said order does not contain the seal of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna or any evidence regarding its authentication, nor the order contained any direction for service of said order to the complainant except that it contains the so called signature of Shri S.K. Sharma, Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, which is reflected in the order. The complainant, being apprehensive that the order was a forged one, obtained the entire order-sheet of the Appeal No. 05 of 2008, but there was no order conformable to order dated 19.12.2008, and therefore, the order could not be made available to the complainant, but the complainant learnt that a different order dated 19.12.2008 was passed in the said appeal wherein first page of the application giving details of the respondents are to be made available to the counsel for the Bank. The said order is enclosed as Annexrure-8 in the complaint. It is alleged that the Complainant had sent a legal notice dated 07.05.2014 through his counsel to accused no. 1, but even after receipt of notice, the accused knowingly did not send any reply. The comp