Raghvendra Pratap Singh vs State Of Bihar and Anr
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48808 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010864052016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-510 Year-2016 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C
District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Son of Late Rajmani Singh, Resident of Village-
Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Anjani Kumar Singh, Son of Late Dashrathi Sharan Singh, Resident of
Village- Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Alok Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 27-10-2026
The present application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (in short the “Cr.P.C.” ) has been filed for
quashing the order dated 04.07.2016 passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua, Kaimur, in Complaint
Case No. 510 (C) of 2016, whereby the learned Magistrate,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
2/34
upon consideration of the complaint, the statement of the
complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the
enquiry witnesses, has found a prima facie case against the
petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468
and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the “I.P.C.” ) and has
ordered issuance of process for his appearance.
2. The prosecution case, as disclosed from the
complaint petition, is that a dispute exists between the parties in
respect of land appertaining to Mauza Bhagwanpur, Thana No.
419, including Plot No. 826 of Khata No. 23, measuring
approximately 1.54 acres. The parties have been litigating in
respect of their respective claims over the said property before
the revenue and consolidation authorities.
It is alleged that the petitioner, in support of his claim
over the disputed land, relied upon various documents and
records relating to partition, mutation and consolidation
proceedings. Amongst the documents relied upon is a
Memorandum of Partition dated 05.12.1992, which, according
to the petitioner, records a family partition in respect of the
property in question. The petition also refers to subsequent
mutation proceedings concerning the disputed land.
Mutation proceedings were initiated in respect of the
disputed property and orders were passed by the competent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
3/34
revenue authorities. The complaint petition refers, inter alia , to
Mutation Case No. 298/1992-93 and subsequent mutation
revision proceedings, including Mutation Revision Case Nos.
12/2012-13 and 13/2012-13 and documents were filed before
the concerned revenue authorities in the course of those
proceedings.
The specific allegation forming the basis of the present
criminal proceeding, however, relates to a document concerning
permission for transfer of the disputed land during the
consolidation proceedings. A document purporting to be a
genuine official document was produced and relied upon,
although the same was allegedly forged/manipulated. It refers
particularly to a letter bearing No. 346 dated 19.10.2011, stated
to relate to the requirement of permission for transfer of land in
Village Bhagwanpur, District Kaimur. A true photocopy of the
said letter has been annexed with the petition as Annexure-6.
The said document, as alleged, had been manipulated/forged
and certain contents had been inserted therein so as to create an
impression that the requisite permission for transfer of the land
had been obtained from the competent consolidation authority.
The complainant alleges that the document was thereafter used
for obtaining an order in favour of the petitioner.
The complainant alleges that the alleged forgery came
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
4/34
to the knowledge of the complainant subsequently, when an
information was obtained from the office of the Deputy
Director, Consolidation, Rohtas, concerning the relevant
permission for transfer of the land. The complainant's case is
that permission for transfer was required from the competent
Consolidation Officer and that the disputed document was relied
upon notwithstanding the absence of such genuine permission.
The complainant accordingly alleges that the
petitioner, with knowledge of the alleged falsity of the
document, used the same in the proceedings before the
competent authority and thereby secured an advantage in respect
of the disputed land.
3. On the basis of these allegations, Complaint Case
No. 510(C) of 2016 was instituted before the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua, Kaimur, on 30.05.2016
under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the I.P.C. The
complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on
09.06.2016, and an enquiry witness, namely Ranjit Kumar
Singh, was also examined. Thereafter, upon consideration of the
materials available during enquiry, the learned Magistrate,
finding a prima facie case for the offences punishable under
Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C., vide order dated
04.07.2016, directed issuance of process against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
5/34
4. Learned Senior counsel Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned
order dated 04.07.2016, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua, Kaimur, in Complaint Case No.
510(C) of 2016, is wholly unsustainable in the facts and
circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed.
4.1. He submits that the entire dispute between the
parties essentially relates to title, possession, partition and
mutation of the land situated at Mauza Bhagwanpur, Thana No.
419, including Plot No. 826 of Khata No. 23, measuring
approximately 1.54 acres. The dispute is, therefore,
predominantly a civil/revenue dispute, and the complainant has
deliberately given a criminal colour to the same in order to
harass the petitioner and pressurize him in the pending land
proceedings.
4.2. Learned counsel highlights that the property in
question was ancestral/family property and a family partition
had already taken place. A memorandum of partition dated
05.12.1992 was prepared and executed amongst the family
members. Thereafter, proceedings for mutation and other
revenue formalities were undertaken in respect of the respective
shares of the parties. The petitioner has relied upon the said
partition and the subsequent revenue proceedings to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
6/34
demonstrate that his claim over the property is based upon pre-
existing rights and is not the result of any fraudulent transaction.
4.3. He points out that the complainant is attempting to
dispute the petitioner's claim over the land by raising allegations
concerning a document said to be related to permission for
transfer of the property during consolidation proceedings. The
petitioner has falsely been accused of forging or manipulating
the said document, although the petitioner was neither the
author nor the custodian of the alleged document. It is thus
contended that there is no material to show that the petitioner
has himself forged or fabricated the document.
4.4. Referring to the allegations, he submits that the
allegations under Sections 465 and 468 of the I.P.C. cannot be
sustained merely on the assertion that a document relied upon in
a revenue proceeding was forged. There must be material
connecting the petitioner with the alleged making or alteration
of the document. In the absence of any such material, the
continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner
would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
4.5. With regard to the allegation under Section 471
I.P.C., learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be
prosecuted merely because the disputed document was referred
to or relied upon in a revenue proceeding. The prosecution must
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
7/34
have material to prima facie establish that the petitioner used the
document as genuine knowing or having reason to believe it to
be forged. However, in the instant case, no such material is
available against the petitioner.
4.6. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner's case is
supported by the proceedings before the revenue and
consolidation authorities. It is pointed out that permission for
transfer of the land was required from the competent
Consolidation authority during the relevant period, and the
petitioner had obtained information under the Right to
Information Act, 2005, from the concerned authority regarding
the requirement of such permission. The petitioner relies upon
the said information to demonstrate that the question regarding
permission was a matter arising out of the consolidation/revenue
proceedings and cannot, by itself, furnish the foundation for the
criminal allegations made against him.
4.7. Fortifying his argument, learned Senior Advocate
avers that several proceedings had already taken place between
the parties in relation to the same property, including mutation
and revision proceedings before the revenue authorities. The
petition refers to the mutation revision proceedings and other
orders concerning the disputed property. The present complaint
is, a further attempt by the complainant to pressurize the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
8/34
petitioner in the property dispute and to obtain indirectly,
through criminal proceedings, an adjudication of questions,
which are essentially civil and revenue in nature.
4.8. Learned counsel emphatically submits that the
complainant had earlier also, initiated criminal proceedings
against the petitioner in relation to the same property by lodging
Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 88 of 2014, in which proceedings
had been initiated under various provisions of the I.PC. It is
contended that the present complaint is another proceeding
arising out of the continuing property dispute and is, therefore,
indicative of the complainant’s intention to harass the petitioner
and the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate properly the
nature of the dispute and the materials brought on record. The
order issuing process has been passed without there being
sufficient material connecting the petitioner with the alleged
forgery or manipulation of the document.
4.9. Thus, he submits that the essential ingredients of
the offences alleged are not disclosed against the petitioner even
if the allegations contained in the complaint are taken at its face
value. The continuation of the criminal proceeding, in the
circumstances, would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner
and would amount to misuse of the criminal process for settling
a private property dispute.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
9/34
4.10. At last he argues that the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to prevent abuse
of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.
Since the allegations arise out of an existing land/revenue
dispute, the petitioner has been implicated without any legally
sustainable material connecting him with the alleged forgery,
and the basic ingredients of the offences are not made out, hence
the impugned order dated 04.07.2016 and the consequential
criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 510(C) of 2016
deserve to be quashed.
5. Learned Senior counsel Mr. Alok Kumar, appearing
on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2/Complainant submits that the
present application is devoid of merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
5.1. He emphatically submitted that the complainant
had preferred Mutation Appeal No. 66/11-12 before the Deputy
Collector Land Reforms against the order dated 17.12.1992
passed in Mutation Case No. 298/92-93, which was allowed in
favour of the complainant vide order dated 18.05.2012.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Mutation Revision Case No.
12/2012-13 against the said order. In the said Mutation Revision
Case No. 12/2012-13, the petitioner relied upon Memo No. 346
dated 19.10.2011, purportedly issued by the Deputy Director,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
10/34
Consolidation, Bhabhua. It is specifically alleged that the said
memo had been interpolated and forged, particularly in
paragraph 1, by adding therein that permission for transfer of
the land was required before July, 1992. The said manipulated
and forged memo was thereafter filed in the mutation revision
proceeding.
5.2. He submits that the Mutation Revision Case No.
12/2012-13 was allowed vide order dated 05.09.2012, after
taking into consideration the said manipulated and forged
memo. The complainant thereafter challenged the said order
before the appropriate forum and during course of the
subsequent proceedings, the complainant came to know about
the manipulation and forgery with respect to Memo No. 346
dated 19.10.2011. Then the opposite party No.2/Complainant
obtained information under the Right to Information Act on
06.05.2016, along with a copy of Memo No. 346 dated
19.10.2011, and from the information so received it transpired
that the said memo had been manipulated and interpolated.
Immediately thereafter, the complainant approached the
criminal Court and filed Complaint Case No. 510(C) of 2016 on
30.05.2016.
5.3. With respect to maintainability of the present
complaint case, learned counsel submits that the contention
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
11/34
regarding the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is
wholly misconceived. The alleged interpolation and forgery in
Memo No. 346 dated 19.10.2011 had already been committed
before the document was produced or filed before the
Court/revenue authority. Therefore, the offence of forgery was
not committed in respect of a document after it had been
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding before the Court,
so the bar under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. would not operate in
the facts of the present case and the complaint instituted by
Opposite Party No. 2 is maintainable.
5.4. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2/the
complainant avers that the allegations of interpolation and
forgery of Memo No. 346 dated 19.10.2011, its subsequent use
in the mutation revision proceeding and the material brought on
record by the complainant, constitute sufficient grounds for
continuation of the criminal proceeding. The disputed questions
regarding the genuineness of the memo and the role of the
petitioner are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence
and cannot be examined in detail in the present proceeding
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5.5. It is, thus, vehemently argued that the impugned
order passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any
illegality or infirmity, warranting interference by this Court. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
12/34
present application filed by the petitioner under Section 482
Cr.P.C., accordingly, deserves to be dismissed.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Pushpa
Sinha, appearing for the State opposes the application and
submits that the learned Magistrate, after following the
procedure prescribed under law and upon consideration of the
materials available before him, has found sufficient ground for
proceeding against the petitioner. She urged that at the stage of
consideration of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this
Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or appreciate the
defence of the petitioner. The allegations made in the complaint
and the materials collected during the enquiry are required to be
considered for determining whether a prima facie case is
disclosed and moreover defence of the accused is to be seen
during trial and, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this
application.
7. Heard learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf
of the respective parties as well as learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State and perused the documents placed on
records.
8. It appears that primary and material dispute between
the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party No. 2 is not
confined to rival claims over the land, but has encompassed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
13/34
allegation to the effect that the document dated 19.10.2011 as
contained in Letter No. 346 has been forged by the petitioner,
whereas the petitioner claims that he has got the copy of the said
letter obtained by an advocate, under R.T.I., from the concerned
Department. Similarly, the complainant/opposite party No. 2
also claims that he has also obtained the copy of the same letter,
under R.T.I., and alleging interpolation in the aforesaid letter,
the complainant/opposite party No. 2 has lodged the complaint
case on 28.05.2016, almost after four years of the order dated
15.09.2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Kaimur at
Bhabhua in Mutation Revision Case Nos. 12/2012-13 and
13/2012-13.
9. In order to properly appreciate the nature of dispute
between the parties, it would be germane to consider the factual
background to examine and verify as to whether any criminal
offence, as alleged by the complainant/opposite party No. 2, has
been committed by the petitioner or not?
10. Background facts, concerning the issue, are
discussed hereinbelow:-
(i) Petitioner and the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 are
agnates, drawing their descendance from
common ancestor, namely, late Kamta
Prasad Singh;
(ii) Late Kamta Prasad Singh
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
14/34
has three sons, namely, Dashrathi Sharan
Singh, Raj Mani Singh and Deo Muni
Singh;
(iii) Anjani Kumar Singh (the
complainant/opposite party No.2 herein) is
the son of late Dashrathi Sharan Singh,
whereas the petitioner, namely, Raghvendra
Pratap Singh, is the son of Raj Mani Singh
and the third son of late Kamta Prasad
Singh has two sons, namely, Dr. Abhijit
Singh and Vishwajit Pratap Singh;
(iv) The land in dispute is having
an area of 1.54 acres under Plot No. 826,
Khata No. 23, in Mauja/Village-
Bhagwanpur, Thana No. 419, Anchal-
Bhagawanpur, District-Kaimur;
(v) In the year 1981, the partition
of joint family property took between late
Kamta Prasad Singh and his three sons,
namely, Dashrathi Sharan Singh, Raj Mani
Singh and Deo Muni Singh. Accordingly, a
comprised decree was prepared vide
Partition Suit No. 1981 of 1985 and
mutation was done with respect to the
respective shares of all the four
shareholders;
(vi) On 05.12.1992, another
memorandum of partition was prepared,
containing Schedule-A, B and C, in the
name of Raghvendra Pratap Singh (the
petitioner herein), Dashrathi Sharan Singh
and Deo Muni Singh, in which, late Kamta
Prasad Singh has relinquished his entire
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
15/34
estate in favour of the aforesaid persons;
(vii) Accordingly, 51.1/3
decimals of land out of the disputed Plot
No. 826 was distributed to all
shareholders;
(viii) Thereafter, a mutation case
vide Mutation Case No. 298/1992-1993
was registered, wherein vide order dated
17.12.1992, passed by the Circle Officer,
Bhagwanpur, separate jamabandi was also
created in the name of the aforesaid
persons including the petitioner as well as
the father of the complainant/opposite
party No. 2;
(ix) This creation of Jamabandi
(mutation) was never challenged;
(x) Another internal partition
took place between Dashrathi Sharan
Singh and his sons, namely Anjani Kumar
Singh (the complainant/opposite party No.
2) and Arun Kumar Singh and, accordingly,
partition memorandum was signed by the
aforesaid three persons on 04.04.2004 and
jamabandi was also accordingly created in
their names;
(xi) The aforesaid partition dated
05.12.1992 between Dashrathi Sharan
Singh and other agnats in deciding the
petition was never challenged nor the
mutation order dated 17.12.1992, passed in
favour of the petitioner and his family
members, was ever challenged by the
father of the complainant/opposite party
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
16/34
No. 2 or his/their grandfather;
(xii) Even the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 did not
challenge the said order of mutation, dated
17.12.1992, passed in favour of the
petitioner and his family till 2010 and
almost after 20 years, he filed a mutation
appeal against the aforesaid mutation done
in the year 1992 vide Mutation Appeal No.
66/2011-2012 before the D.C.L.R.,
Bhabhua, claiming the aforesaid land on
the basis of Registered Gift Deed No. 6518
dated 02.06.1991, claimed to have been
executed by late Kamta Prasad Singh, the
grandfather;
(xiii) But the aforesaid
Registered Gift Deed, dated 02.06.1991,
had already been cancelled by late Kamta
Prasad Singh, by virtue of Registrered
Cancellation Deed dated 14.09.1992;
(xiv) The D.C.L.R., Bhabhua,
without issuing notice to the petitioner and
other necessary parties, allowed the appeal
and set aside the impugned order dated
17.12.1992 vide his ex-parte order dated
18.05.2012;
(xv) Against the said ex-parte
order passed by the D.C.L.R., Bhabhua,
almost after 20 years of the mutation order,
a mutation revision was preferred by the
petitioner and his uncle, namely, Deo Muni
Singh vide Mutation Revision Nos.
12/2012-2013 and 13/2012-2013
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
17/34
respectively;
(xvi) The Additional Collector,
Bhabhua (Kaimur) heard both the mutation
revisions together and vide order dated
15.09.2012, set aside the order of the
D.C.L.R., Bhabhua;
(xvii) It was in this mutation
revision proceeding that the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 alleges
that the petitioner produced one document
obtained by the Advocate, namely, Sanjay
Kumar Srivastava, under the R.T.I., from
the Deputy Director (Consolidation),
Rohtas as to whether prior permission was
required for transfer of land in Revenue
Thana No. 419 in the year 1991, upon
which, the Office, vide Letter No. 346 dated
19.10.2011, furnished information that the
land in Thana No. 419 is not notified under
Section 26(A) of the Bihar Consolidation of
Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation
Act, 1956, hence till July, 1992, permission
is required for transfer of the aforesaid
land;
(xviii) This is the basic allegation
of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 in
the instant complaint case that the
aforesaid document filed by the petitioner
in mutation revision is not a genuine
document;
(xix) Challenging the aforesaid
order passed in mutation revision by the
Additional Collector, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
18/34
complainant/opposite party No. 2 had
already preferred an appeal before the
Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna vide B.L.T.
Case No. 1507 of 2015 and B.L.T. Case No.
33 of 2016, which are pending
consideration;
(xx) Besides the above, the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 had
already filed a Title Suit in the year 2012
vide Title Suit No. 358 of 2012 in the Court
of learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, Bhabhua
(Kaimur);
(xxi) In view of the complaint
case, the petitioner also filed an
application, under the R.T.I., before the
Consolidation Officer, Bhagwanpur as to
whether prior permission was required for
transfer of land in Revenue Thana No. 419
in the year 1991, upon which, an
information was furnished vide letter dated
04.08.2016, categorically stating that in
Revenue Thana No. 419, for the transfer of
land, in the year 1991, prior permission
was required from the Consolidation
Officer; and
(xxii) Thus, both the information
supplied under the R.T.I. Act, as contained
in letters dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure-6)
and 04.08.2016 (Annexure-7) mentioned
that permission was required for the land
transfer in Thana No. 419 in the year 1991.
11. The perusal of the aforesaid factual background,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
19/34
indisputably, evince that main ground of the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 for filing the complaint case
for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the
I.P.C., wherein vide order dated 04.07.2016, the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua (Kaimur) has taken
cognizance of the offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of
the I.P.C. and issued processes against the petitioner, primarily
founded on this ground that there is some interpolation in Letter
No. 346 dated 19.10.2011 and hence, it is forged one and,
accordingly, criminal proceeding has been set in motion.
12. Very perusal of Annexure-6, which contains
Letter No. 346, dated 19.10.2011, issued by the Deputy Director
(Consolidation), Rohtas and perusal of the information provided
vide information dated 04.08.2016 (Annexure-7), issued under
the R.T.I. Act by the Office of Consolidation Officer,
Bhagwanpur, indisputably, reveal that for transfer of land under
Thana No. 419 till the year 1991, permission was required.
13. The allegation of forgery committed by the
petitioner by way of interpolating certain words in the Letter
No. 346, dated 19.10.2011, does not appear to be correct in view
of the information furnished under the R.T.I. by the Office of the
Consolidation Officer, Bhabhua, Kaimur. Both the letters, viz. ,
19.10.2011 and 04.08.2016, state the same things, but in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
20/34
different formats. In the letter claiming interpolation and
forgery, information was furnished by a different office, whereas
the information dated 04.08.2016 has been issued by a different
office. By merely change in the formats of providing
information, one cannot claim that the forgery has been
committed. There is no evidence on record to show and prove
that the interpolation made in the letter dated 19.10.2011 is
attributable to the petitioner because this letter has been issued
by the Office of Deputy Director (Consolidation), Rohtas and
there is no document, contradicting the same, has been placed
on record by the complainant/opposite party No. 2. Moreover,
in order to show the perversity and falsity in the allegation of
the complainant/opposite party No. 2, the petitioner has also
brought on record an information provided by the Office of the
Consolidation Officer, Bhagwanpur, Kaimur on 04.08.2016,
stating the same fact, which had earlier been stated.
14. It is the allegation that on the basis of Annexure
6, i.e. , the letter dated 19.10.2011, the petitioner has got
favourable orders from the Court of Additional Collector, who
set aside the ex-parte order of the D.C.L.R. passed in favour of
the complainant/opposite party No. 2, which the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 claims to be false and
fabricated one.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
21/34
15. There is absolutely no evidence supporting,
substantiating and buttressing the allegation of the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 that the letter dated
19.10.2011, as contained in Annexure-6, has been interpolated
and tampered by the petitioner. When one compares Annexure-
6 and Annexure-7, the informations, provided by different
offices with respect to the same piece of land and regarding the
same query, it becomes crystal clear that there is absolutely no
material differences between the two informations, at all, and
neither are these two letters, at variance with each other, in
terms of the contents and informations provided therein.
16. Further, if the complainant/opposite party No. 2
has any grievance with respect to letter dated 19.10.2011, that it
has been forged and thereby the Additional Collector has been
mislead to pass such erroneous order, he could have raised this
matter before the Additional Collector itself, but he did not do
the same nor did he raise this issue before the Office of the
Deputy Director (Consolidation), Rohtas, wherefrom this letter
has been issued. As a matter of fact, he had assailed the order
passed by the Additional Collector, setting aside the ex-parte
order of the D.C.L.R. in favour of the complainant/opposite
party No. 2, before the Bihar Land Tribunal, in terms of the
statutory provisions and the same is pending for final
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
22/34
adjudication.
17. Moreover, the complainant/opposite party No. 2
has already filed a Title Suit with respect to the same piece of
land concerning which the dispute is going on between the
parties way-back in the year 2012 much before filing of the
instant complaint case, arraying the petitioner as defendant, in
the Court of Sub-Ordinate Judge, Bhabhua (Kaimur) and the
same is sub-judice before the competent Court of civil
jurisdiction.
18. The instant criminal prosecution, which has
been lodged against the petitioner alleging offences under
Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the I.P.C., on the strength of
allegation of claiming forgery in the letter dated 19.10.2011
issued by the Office of Deputy Director (Consolidation),
Rohtas, brings me to the stage where examination of the
ingredients of the offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of
the I.P.C. becomes imperative under which cognizance has been
taken against the petitioner.
19. It is apposite to note that to attract offence of
Sections 465 and 468 of the I.P.C., the prosecution must
establish that the accused made a false document within the
meaning of Section 463 and 464 of the I.P.C., with intent to
cheat.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
23/34
20. The offence of forgery and making of false
document as defined under Sections 463 and 464 of the I.P.C.
are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
“ 463. Forgery .-Whoever makes
any false documents or false electronic
record or part of a document or electronic
record, with intent to cause damage or
injury, to the public or to any person, or to
support any claim or title, or to cause any
person to part with property, or to enter into
any express or implied contract, or with
intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be
committed, commits forgery.
464. Making a false document .-A
person is said to make a false document or
false electronic record:
First-Who dishonestly or
fraudulently-
(a) makes, sign, seals or executes
a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any
electronic record or part of any electronic
record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on
any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the
execution of a document or the authenticity
of the digital signature, with the intention of
causing it to be believed that such document
or part of document, electronic record or
digital signature was made, signed, sealed,
executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the
authority or a person by whom or by whose
authority he knows that it was not made,
signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or
Secondly who, without lawful authority,
dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation
or otherwise, alters a document or an
electronic record in any material part
thereof, after it has been made, executed or
affixed with digital signature either by
himself or by any other person, whether
such person be living or dead at the time of
such alteration; or Thirdly-who dishonestly
or fraudulently causes any person, sign,
seal, execute or alter a document or an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
24/34
electronic record or to affix his digital
signature on any electronic record knowing
that such person by reason of unsoundness
of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by
reason of deception practiced upon him, he
does not know the contents of the document
or electronic record or the nature of the
alteration.”
21. Section 471 of the I.P.C. reads as hereunder:-
“ 471. Using as genuine a forged
[document or electronic record] .-Whoever
fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine
any [document or electronic record] which
he knows or has reason to believe to be a
forged [document or electronic record],
shall be punished in the same manner as if
he had forged such [document or electronic
record].”
22. The essential ingredient of forgery under
Section 463 of the I.P.C. is the making of a “false document”
within the meaning of Section 464 of the I.P.C.
23. The law on this issue is settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar , reported
in (2009) 8 SCC 751 , wherein it was held that when a person
executes a document claiming property as his own, there is no
making of a false document merely because the claim is
ultimately found to be incorrect. The relevant paragraph reads as
under:
“17. When a document is executed
by a person claiming a property which is
not his, he is not claiming that he is
someone else nor is he claiming that he is
authorised by someone else. Therefore,
execution of such document (purporting to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
25/34
convey some property of which he is not
the owner) is not execution of a false
document as defined under Section 464 of
the Code. If what is executed is not a false
document, there is no forgery. If there is no
forgery, then neither Section 467 nor
Section 471 of the Code are attracted.”
24. In the case at hand, no specific act of making,
signing, executing or altering any false document has been
attributed to the petitioner. The allegations, as set out in the
petition, primarily concern with Letter No. 346 dated
19.10.2011 issued by the Revenue Office of the Government.
However, the question whether any document was forged, the
circumstances in which it was prepared or processed, and
whether the petitioner had any role or knowledge in that regard
must be examined with reference to the relevant documents and
the materials collected during investigation. Neither is there any
allegation of that nature nor is there any evidence of showing
involvement of the petitioner in making or forging any
documents, has surfaced in course of investigation, when the
alleged interpolations in Letter No. 346 dated 19.10.2011 is seen
in conjunction with the letter of 2016, it becomes absolutely
clear that information as contained in the letter of 2011 do not
have any interpolation. Thus, no offence under Sections 465 and
468 of the I.P.C. is also made out.
25. With respect to the allegation under Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
26/34
471 of the I.P.C., in respect of which the learned Magistrate has
taken cognizance, it is necessary to examine the ingredients of
the said provision to ascertain whether the offence punishable
under Section 471 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner
or not?
26. Like Sections 465 and 468 of the I.P.C.,
Section 471 of the I.P.C. also requires proof that the accused
used a forged document as genuine, knowing or having reason
to believe, at the time of its use, that the document was forged.
In the instant case, there is no allegation, whatsoever, that the
petitioner used any forged document as genuine, knowing or
having reason to believe that the same was forged at the time of
its use. On the contrary, the petitioner has enclosed all the
relevant documents obtained from the concerned Government
office, under R.T.I., for the perusal of the officials and these
documents indisputably contradicts the allegation of forgery
levelled against the petitioner. Moreover, there is not even a
shred of evidence available on record to establish that the
document in question or any other document relied upon by the
petitioner and obtained from the concerned Government office,
was known to him to be forged or that he had any reason to
believe the same to be forged.
27. Thus, in the absence of the requisite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
27/34
ingredients of the offence, no offence under Section 471 of the
I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner, nor can he be held
criminally liable for the commission of the said offence.
28. The ingredients of the offence under Section
471 of the I.P.C. and the legal principles governing its
applicability have been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Vandna Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1954 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as follows:-
“On the contrary, the material evidence
would disclose that the documents passed
through institutional hands for scrutiny,
endorsement and forwarding and at certain
points of time it was not in the custody of
appellant at all. In such circumstances, the
passing of the alleged document through the
hands of several person before it was detected
as forged renders unsafe to arrive at a
conclusion that appellant had authored the
tampering or possessed the contemporaneous
knowledge of such tampering. It is apt to
mention that it is well-established principle of
law that suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot
replace the standard of legal proof.”
Thus, in view of the allegations levelled and the
evidence brought on record, no mens rea on the part of the
petitioner appears to be established, which is a prerequisite for
attracting the provisions of Section 471 of the I.P.C.
29. Thus, none of the offences for which
cognizance has been taken by the learned Trial Court is made
out against the petitioner and there exists no basis for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
28/34
prosecuting him for the offences punishable under Sections 465,
468 and 471 of the I.P.C.
30. In the case at hand, ingredients of the offences
as mentioned under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. are
clearly not made out in terms of the nature of allegations as
levelled in the instant complaint case. The very basis upon
which the offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C.
said to have been alleged, the perusal of which proves the
contrary.
31. Further, the instant prosecution appears to be an
outcome of malicious and vindictive approach on behalf of the
complainant/opposite party No. 2, who, firstly, raised an issue of
cancellation of mutation created in favour of the petitioner in the
year 2012, i.e ., almost twenty years when mutation was done
way back in the year 1992 and when he obtained an ex-parte
order from the Office of the D.C.L.R., without affording an
opportunity to the petitioner and his family to place on record
the correct facts for appreciation by the D.C.L.R., the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 becomes aggrieved, the
moment the Additional Collector set aside the ex-parte order
passed by the D.C.L.R. in favour of the complainant/opposite
party No. 2. Thereafter, the complainant/opposite party No. 2,
in a well conceived and well planned manner, instituted three
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
29/34
proceedings, viz. :
(i) He filed Title Suit No. 358 of 2012 with
respect to the disputed piece of land;
(ii) He assailed the order of the Additional
Collector before the B.L.T.; and
(iii) He also filed a criminal case against the
petitioner vide Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 88 of 2014
dated 19.06.2014 for the offences under Sections 341,
323, 506 and 379/34 of the I.P.C., in which, after
investigation, the police not only submitted the final
form, exonerating the petitioner and his family, but
also submitted a prosecution report for prosecuting the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 under Sections 182
and 211 of the I.P.C. Thereafter, the instant case was
filed in the year 2016, implicating the petitioner and
setting the judicial process in motion against the
petitioner.
32. The aforesaid facts, indisputably, and
unequivocally demonstrate the mal intention and ulterior motive
of the complainant/opposite party No. 2, who, in order to settle
personal scores and moreover, to settle land dispute with the
petitioner, who is none-else than his the closest agnate, just in
order to grab his land, has instituted multiple proceedings with a
view to coerce and compel the petitioner to come to his terms,
so that he can have lion’s shares in the ancestral property, the
issue which had already been settled amicably between the
ancestors two decades ago.
33. This practice of initiating criminal prosecution
for settling purely civil disputes has severely been deprecated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in no uncertain terms.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
30/34
34. In almost identical set of facts, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sardool Singh Vs. Nasib Kaur ,
reported in 1987 Supp SCC 146 , has observed as follows:-
“A civil suit between the parties is
pending wherein the contention of the
respondent is that no will was executed
whereas the contention of the appellants is
that a will has been executed by the
testator. A case for grant of probate is also
pending in the Court of learned District
Judge, Rampur. The civil court is therefore
seized of the question as regards the
validity of the will. The matter is sub
judice in the aforesaid two cases in civil
courts. At this juncture the respondent
cannot therefore be permitted to institute a
criminal prosecution on the allegation
that the will is a forged one. That question
will have to be decided by the civil court
after recording the evidence and hearing
the parties in accordance with law. It
would not be proper to permit the
respondent to prosecute the appellants on
this allegation when the validity of the will
is being tested before a civil court. We,
therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the
order of the High Court. and quash the
criminal proceedings pending in the Court
of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Chandigarh in Nasib Kaur v. Sardool
Singh. This will not come in the way of
instituting appropriate proceedings in
future in case the civil court comes to the
conclusion that the will is a forged one.
We of course refrain from expressing any
opinion as regards genuineness or
otherwise of the will in question as there
is no occasion to do so and the question is
wide open before the lower courts.”
(emphasis supplied)
35. Reference to case of Mohd. Wajid Vs. State of
U.P. , reported in (2023) 20 SCC 2019 , would also be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
31/34
appropriate in the present facts of the case, wherein it has been
held in paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 as follows:-
“36. At this stage, we would like to
observe something important. Whenever
an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to get the FIR or the
criminal proceedings. quashed essentially
on the ground that such proceedings are
manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances the Court owes a duty to
look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely.
37. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against
the accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc, then
he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is
very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that the averments made in the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose
the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are
disclosed or not.
38. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to
look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record
of the case over and above the averments
and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the
lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case
but is empowered to take into account the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
32/34
overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well
as the materials collected in the course of
investigation……..”
(emphasis supplied)
36. The present case, viewed in its peculiar facts
and circumstances, indisputably, constitutes all the
characteristics of a civil property dispute, which is sought to be
converted into criminal proceedings, after several years of
litigation on the basis of misinterpretation of a document, which
is simply unacceptable in view of the settled judicial principles.
37. This Court, thus, is of the considered opinion
that the current criminal proceeding cannot be permitted to
become a weapon of harassment and coercion in disputes
concerning the Title over immovable property, which the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 has practically been doing and
is appeared to be successful till date.
38. Suffice is to refer, at this stage, to what is
arguably the most famous judgment, i.e. , State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal , reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , and its recent
reiteration in M. Srikanth Vs. State of Telangana & Anr. ,
reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373 , and Balaji Traders Vs. State of
U.P. , reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 131 4, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-
“where the dispute is
predominantly civil in nature; where the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
33/34
allegations failed to disclose the essential
ingredients of the alleged offences; where
the criminal proceedings are manifestly
attended with mala fide intention; where
there is extraordinary and unexplained
delay; and where the continuation of the
prosecution would amount to abuse of
process of Court” ,
warrants interference of this Court under its
inherent power as contemplated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in
order to prevent, not only, the misuse, but also, the abuse of the
judicial process where the disgruntled elements, just in order to
satiate his/their personal lust and greed, has/have set the judicial
process in motion.
39. Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual
legal discussions, the instant criminal prosecution of the
petitioner, being an outcome of malicious prosecution, is fit to
be set aside in the interest of justice.
40. Ex consequenti , the order dated 04.07.2016
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Bhabhua, Kaimur in connection with Complaint Case No.
510(C) of 2016, whereby finding the case prima facie under
Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the I . P.C., cognizance has been
taken, is, hereby, quashed and set aside with respect to the
petitioner and all the consequent criminal proceedings
emanating therefrom are also, hereby, quashed and set aside,
qua the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48808 of 2016 dt.27-10-2026
34/34
41. It is ordered accordingly.
42. The application stands allowed.
43. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any,
also stands disposed of.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Supratim/Praveen-
II/Rakesh
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 29.07.2026
Uploading Date 04.11.2026
Transmission Date 04.11.2026