Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PURNENDU SINGH
Chandra Bhushan Singh @ Chandra Bhushan Sharma Son of Late Binda Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments presented by the parties highlight differences in claims related to property ownership. (Para 6) |
| 2. court identifies failure to consider prior filings before taking cognizance. (Para 7 , 14) |
| 3. crucial legal provisions concerning forgery and usage of documents as evidence. (Para 8 , 12) |
| 4. final decision quashes prior cognizance based on insufficient legal grounding. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
PURNENDU SINGH, J.
Heard Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS for quashing of the order dated 20.02.2020 passed in Complaint Case No.525(C)/2019, by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi, by which he has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 193 , 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code . He further seeks quashing of entire proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.525(C)/2019.
3. Brief facts of the case are that dispute arises out of a piece of land, relating to a property located in village Kadimpur Nima (now known as Nima), Paragna Sandha, P.S. Massaurhi (now Dhanarua),
Quashing of criminal proceedings due to lack of sufficient evidence and failure to consider prior relevant filings by the opposite party.
It is well settled that in order to constitute an offence of cheating, it must be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the representation or promise and ....
To attract the offence of forgery, the accused must be the maker of the forged document. The court also emphasized the importance of providing due opportunity to address arguments and the limitations....
Absent core elements of deception and harm, allegations of forgery and cheating in the context of legal heirs and land mutation do not warrant criminal prosecution.
There must be a prima facie case for a cognizance order; if facts only reveal a civil dispute, the criminal proceedings cannot proceed.
The court emphasized the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences, quashing the FIR due to lack of criminal intent in the allegations.
When civil court findings affirm the genuineness of documents alleged to be forged, criminal proceedings for forgery should be quashed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
