Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 216 of 2010, including the order dated 16.7.2010, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 467, 471, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.

3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties the case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of.

4. It is the case of the complainant that the land bearing Plot Nos. 4617, 4839 and 4882, measuring total area of 6.95 acres, was leased out to the complainant for mining minor mineral. Thereafter, the complainant started doing mining work. While he was engaged in doing mining work, the accused Ashok Kumar Singh, Bikhari Thakur and Jato Hazam one day approached to the complainant and asked for money. They held out threat that if the money would not be paid, they would not allow him to do the mining work rather he will be ousted from there.

5. Further case is that on 11.7.2009, all the aforesaid accused persons came and told the complainant that they had purchased the land and asked the complainant to stop the mining work and they started doing the mining work. When the complainant asked them to stop doing so, they started hurling abuses upon him. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the petitioner No.1, who, at the relevant point of time, was halka karmchari and the petitioner No.2, a Circle Inspector, had submitted a report in favour of Ashok Kumar Singh with respect to the aforesaid land, which report was forged and fabricated and thereby on the basis of forged and fabricated report, mutation order was passed.

6. On such allegation, complaint case was lodged as Complaint Case No. 216 of 2010. Upon such complaint, when the cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid was taken, that order was challenged in this application.

7. Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that accepting the entire allegation to be true, no offence of forgery is made out as the petitioners under the order passed by the Additional Collector, had submitted its report vide Annexure-7/2, when after disposal of the case by the Additional Collector, Soberan Thakur and Jato Hazam had sold the land to Ashok Kumar Singh and on that basis, Ashok Kumar Singh had made an application for mutating his name against the vended land and, therefore, the petitioners by submitting such report, reporting factual aspect of the matter, did not commit any offence of forgery and thereby, the court has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 120B, 467, 471, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, so far these petitioners are concerned, who are halka karamchari and the Circle Inspector.

8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submits that a mining lease had been given to the complainant over the land said to have been sold by Soberan Thakur and Jato Hazam to one Ashok Kumar Singh which act itself was quite illegal on the part of the seller as admittedly the land, in question, was given to the petitioner by way of mining lease and further when an application was filed before the Circle Officer, Koderma, for mutating the land, the order of mutation was passed in favour of Ashok Kumar Singh without giving notice to the leaseholder and since the complainant was leaseholder, petitioners should have mentioned about these facts in their report, but since this fact, has not been stated by these petitioners in their report, they can be said to have committed offence of forgery.

9. In the context of the submissions, it is to be considered that as to whether the petitioners have committed any act of forgery. Straight way, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Mohammed Ibr