Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Anr vs The State Of Bihar and Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49757 of 2017
CNR No. BRHC010464922017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2015 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE District-
Saran
======================================================
1. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava alias Rajesh Srivastava, sons of Late Sidheshwar
Prasad Srivastava, Village- Rahimpur, P.S.- Sonepur, District- Saran.
2. Alok Kumar Srivastava, son of Late Sidheshwar Prasad Srivastava, Village-
Rahimpur, P.S.- Sonepur, District- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Gorakhnath Rai, Son of Bhagawat Rai, Village- Najarmira, P.S.- Sonepur,
District- Saran.
3. Kumar Saryug Anand, Son of Bhagawat Rai, Village- Najarmira, P.S.-
Sonepur, District- Saran.
4. Vinod Kumar, Son of Bhagawat Rai, Village- Najarmira, P.S.- Sonepur, Dis-
trict- Saran.
5. Mantu Kumar, Gorakhnath Rai, Village- Najarmira, P.S.- Sonepur, District-
Saran.
6. Jaggu Rai alias Jag Narayan Rai, Son of Late Khakhu Rai, Village- Tarwa
Mangarpal, P.S.- Dariapur, District- Siwan.
7. Deo Bahadur Rai, Son of Late Khakhu Rai, Village- Tarwa Mangarpal, P.S.-
Dariapur, District- Siwan.
8. Sunil Kumar Rai, Son of Deo Bahadur Rai, Village- Tarwa Mangarpal, P.S.-
Dariapur, District- Siwan.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-10-2026
Heard Learned counsel for the Petitioners and
Learned counsel for the State.
2. The present application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners, be-
ing the sons/legal heirs of the original complainant, late Sidhesh-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49757 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
2/9
war Prasad Srivastava, seeking quashing of the order dated
17.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magis-
trate-VIII, Saran at Chapra in Complaint Case No. 84 of 2015/En-
quiry No. 56 of 2016, whereby the complaint was dismissed under
Section 203 of the Code, as also the order dated 19.05.2017 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Saran at Chapra in
Criminal Revision No. 171 of 2016, whereby the revision was dis-
missed.
3. It appears from the record that the original com-
plainant of the case, Sidheshwar Prasad Srivastava, died prior to
the institution of the present petition. His two sons namely; Rajesh
Kumar Srivastava and Alok Kumar Srivastava have been im-
pleaded as the prosecution party in the instant proceeding.
4. The case of the complainant, as disclosed from the
complaint, is that he resided at Calcutta and his ancestral proper-
ties were situated at village Rahimpur, P.S. Sonepur, District Saran,
which were being looked after by him and his family members. It
was alleged that, on visiting the village, he came to know that a
sale deed had been fraudulently and by impersonation got executed
in respect of the land and registered on 22.11.1989. On obtaining a
certified copy from the Registry Office, he alleged that the deed
contained incorrect particulars and that he, his brothers and his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49757 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
3/9
mother had not executed the same. The persons shown as attesting
witnesses were Braj Kishore Prasad and Bhagirath Rai.
5. It was further alleged that the mother of the com-
plainant was seriously ill and died during her illness. He also al-
leged that the deed was fabricated in conspiracy with the proposed
accused persons, and that the signatures of the alleged vendors
and witnesses were not genuine. The complainant supported the
allegations on solemn affirmation. Three enquiry witnesses were
thereafter examined under Section 202 of the Code. Bhagirath Rai
denied having signed the alleged deed. Jitendra Prasad Srivastava,
the complainant's brother, stated that he knew nothing about the
case and stated that the document was of the year 1992. Braj
Kishore Prasad stated that he had obtained a sale deed of the land
in favour of his wife in 2014 and subsequently came to know that
an earlier deed contained forged signatures.
6. By order dated 17.05.2016, the learned Magistrate
dismissed the complaint. The learned Magistrate noted that the
only document produced by the complainant was a certified copy
of the alleged sale deed dated 22.11.1989 and observed that a cer-
tified copy does not contain the original signatures. The learned
Magistrate didn’t accept the complainant's version that on seeing
the signatures on the certified copy, he and his witnesses came to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49757 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
4/9
know that the deed was forged. The learned Magistrate also no-
ticed the statement of the complainant's brother, the complainant's
continued possession and cultivation of the land, the absence of a
civil proceeding and the long delay in questioning the deed.
7. Aggrieved, the complainant preferred Criminal Re-
vision No. 171 of 2016. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-X,
Saran at Chapra, by order dated 19.05.2017, dismissed the revi-
sion. The revisional court noticed that four enquiry witnesses in-
cluding the complainant had been examined. The complainant had
not produced any document in support of his claim of continued
possession. The alleged deed was of 1989 whereas the complaint
was filed in 2015. Moreover, the explanation regarding discovery
of the forgery through the certified copy was not convincing. The
revisional court also observed that the dispute appeared to be civil
in nature and that a civil remedy was available.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
persons shown as executants and attesting witnesses themselves
denied execution and attestation and that such material was suffi-
cient for issuance of process. It is submitted that, at the stage of
Sections 203 and 204 of the Code, the Magistrate is required only
to see whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists and is not to
conduct a trial. It is further submitted that the sale-deed register

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49757 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
5/9
had been summoned from the Registry Office and the signatures
could have been compared. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that the present application is, in substance, a second revi-
sion and that two courts have concurrently found, on the com-
plainant's own material, that no sufficient ground for proceeding
was made out.
9. The instant petition follows an unsuccessful revi-
sion before the Court of Session. In Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, re-
ported in (1997) 4 SCC 241 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
the inherent power under Section 482 survives the bar contained
in Section 397(3), but ordinarily a second round before the High
Court is not to be permitted after the revision has been decided by
the Sessions Court. The power is to be exercised “sparingly and
cautiously” and in rare cases to prevent miscarriage of justice or
abuse of the process of court. The present enquiry is, therefore,
confined to whether the concurrent orders suffer from perversity
or have resulted in grave injustice.
10. The statutory test at the stage of Sections 200, 202
and 203 of the Code is whether there is “sufficient ground for pro-
ceeding”. In Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaoker
reported in AIR 1960 SC 1113 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the Magistrate is to form his judgment on the complaint, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49757 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
6/9
statements on oath and the result of the enquiry. In Chandra Deo
Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430,
the enquiry under Section 202 was held to be directed to whether
the allegations are “intrinsically true”, and the Magistrate is to
proceed on the material of the complainant, without considering
the defence. In Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal
reported in (1973) 3 SCC 753, the object of the examination was
described as preventing the issue of process on a complaint which
is “false or vexatious or intended only to harass” the person com-
plained against.
11. Applying these principles, this Court finds no per-
versity in the order of the learned Magistrate. The alleged discov-
ery of the forgery was founded on the complainant and his wit-
nesses having seen the signatures on the certified copy obtained
from the Registry Office. A certified copy does not contain the
original signatures of the executants or attesting witnesses. The
learned Magistrate was entitled to test the intrinsic truth of the
complaint on the complainant's own material. No other source of
knowledge of the alleged forgery has been shown.
12. The denials of execution and attestation were be-
fore the learned Magistrate and were considered in the context of
the other enquiry material. Bhagirath Rai stated that he had not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49757 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
7/9
signed the deed and had seen the document only when it was
shown to him by the complainant. Jitendra Prasad Srivastava, the
complainant's own brother, stated that he knew nothing about the
case and gave the year of the document as 1992. Braj Kishore
Prasad stated that he had obtained a sale deed of the land in favour
of his wife in 2014 and that he came to know in December 2014
that the earlier deed contained forged signatures, but no action was
shown to have been taken thereafter. In these circumstances, the
Magistrate's decision not to issue process cannot be termed per-
verse.
13. The delay and conduct also arise from the com-
plainant's own case. The alleged sale deed is dated 22.11.1989,
whereas the complaint was instituted in 2015. The complainant as-
serted that the land remained in his possession and cultivation and
that no civil proceeding had been instituted challenging the deed.
These circumstances were considered by the Magistrate only for
assessing whether sufficient ground for proceeding existed.
14. The revisional court referred to a certified copy of
the registered sale deed and rent receipts stated to have been pro-
duced on behalf of the opposite parties and also referred to the
presumption attaching to a registered document. Such material
from the proposed accused cannot be relied upon at the pre-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49757 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
8/9
process stage. As held in Chandra Deo Singh (supra), accused
has no right of participation before process is issued. This Court,
however, does not rely upon those materials. Even excluding them
altogether, the order of the learned Magistrate is sustainable on the
complaint, solemn affirmation and enquiry statements themselves.
15. The further assertion that the sale-deed register
had been summoned and that the signatures could have been com-
pared is not borne out by either of the impugned orders, nor has
any supporting material from the courts below been shown to this
Court. The said contention, therefore, does not warrant interfer-
ence.
16. It is also relevant that the present application
comes after an order of dismissal by the Magistrate and dismissal
of the revision by the Sessions Court. The inherent jurisdiction un-
der Section 482 cannot be invoked merely to provide another
round of revision. The material on record does not disclose any
exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of that jurisdiction.
The fact that the dispute relates to a registered instrument concern-
ing land does not, by itself, make the criminal remedy unavailable.
On the complainant's own material, the requisite ground for pro-
ceeding was not found to exist by two courts below.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49757 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
9/9
17. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no ille-
gality, perversity or grave miscarriage of justice in the orders
dated 17.05.2016 and 19.05.2017. The present application under
Section 482 of the Code is, accordingly, dismissed.
18. It is, however, made clear that nothing contained
in this order or in the orders of the courts below shall preclude the
petitioners from pursuing such civil remedy in respect of the sale
deed dated 22.11.1989 as may be available to them in accordance
with law. Any such proceeding shall be decided on its own merits,
uninfluenced by any observation made in the complaint, revision
or the present proceedings.
19. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stand dis-
posed of.
(Ansul, J)
natasha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 05.11.2026
Transmission Date 05.11.2026