PATNA, India, Oct. 24 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 25:
Heard Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mrs. Rita Verma, learned APP for the State and Ms. Huma, learned counsel for the Opposite Party no.2.
2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 18.10.2023 in connection with Complaint Case No.1998 of 2022, whereby cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhagalpur under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the allegation made in the complaint, the complainant alleges that the petitioner Amar Kumar Yadav, has falsely represented Late Mahadev Prasad Yadav (her deceased husband's father) as his own father in official documents, such as the Aadhaar card and Police Service Register. In reality, the petitioner is the son of Late Bishundeo Prasad Yadav, as shown in various title deeds, Lagan receipts, and the Jamabandi Register. It is further alleged that the petitioner while serving as a Hawaldar, used this false identity to gain benefits and continues to threaten the complainant, claiming a share in her late husband's property. An RTI reply from the Police Department confirmed that no person named Amar Kumar Yadav, son of Late Mahadev Prasad Yadav, is employed in Bhagalpur District Police. The complainant alleges that the petitioner has committed impersonation and cheating for wrongful gain and is unlawfully attempting to claim rights over her deceased husband's property
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that from plain reading of the complaint, no offence under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code can be made out. Learned counsel, in this regard, has submitted that only vague allegation has been alleged against the petitioner that he abuses the complainant who is the wife of his cousin brother and she has apprehension that the petitioner will dispose of her share in the property. It has also been alleged that the petitioner is a retired Hawaldar and there are criminal cases pending against him. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to different paragraphs of the complaint to show that no case is made out, particularly Paragraph Nos. Anga, cha, chha, ja and jha. On this ground, learned counsel submitted that the case is covered by the conditions mentioned in Para-102 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335. The complainant is in peaceful possession of her share of land and, if at all, complainant is aggrieved, she can avail remedy of partition suit before the Civil Court having jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that in absence of any criminality, no case is made out against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and seeks quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 18.10.2023.
5. Per contra, Ms. Huma has tendered her appearance on behalf of the complainant and has submitted that the petitioner is agnate and he has played fraud with the complainant and the Revenue Officers by giving incorrect information that he is the son of Bishundeo Prasad Yadav which shows that the petitioner has indulged in cheating by giving incorrect information to the revenue department for the purpose of possession of 18.25 decimal of land to which the complainant is also entitled for her share. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner cannot play with the records, at the same time, he has not come before this Court with clean hands by giving information in cause title that he is the son of Late Bishundeo Prasad Yadav and not the son of Bishun Prasad Yadav.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiM3Mzc4NCMyMDI0IzEjTg==-plbNACBcdhw=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
