IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 985 of 2019 Dinesh Singh @ Dinesh Kr. Singh, S/o Bhagwati Narayan Singh, aged about 66 years, Resident of Barmasiya, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridih (T), District Giridih (Jharkhand) --- --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mamta Devi, wife of Jaipal Singh, Resident of Badau, Nekpur, P.S. Civil Lines, Gali No. 3, P.O. Badayun, District Badayun, State Uttar Pradesh --- --- Opp. Parties --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate For the O.P-State: Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Special P.P. For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate --- 08 / 19.02.2025 Petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 11.10.2018, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, whereby and wherein, the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case to be true against the petitioner under sections 471/506 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Complaint Case No. 1737 of 2017. 2. Case of the opposite party no. 2-Mamta Devi is that she was the tenant of the present petitioner. It is alleged that his son had outraged her modesty, due to which, she has filed a complaint which was registered as Mahila Thana Case No. 12 of 2017. Subsequently, she vacated the premises of the petitioner on 09.04.2017 and shifted to another accommodation. On 17.04.2017 petitioner filed a Misc. Petition No. 569 of 2017 in the court of C.J.M, enclosing a document purportedly issued by the opposite party no. 2 as evidence of vacation of the premises. 3. According to the opposite party no. 2, this document was forged and fabricated and she has never put her signature on any such document. It is further case of the opposite party no. 2 that the petitioner had threatened her and under pressure, she has filed an application for withdrawal of the present case. Statement of the opposite party no. 2 was recorded on S.A and after inquiry, the learned Magistrate found prima facie case to be true under sections 471/506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire case is forged and fabricated and is counter blast to the case filed by him against the opposite party no. 2. 5. From the averments made in the complaint petition and also the fact stated by the opposite party no. 2 in her statement recorded on S.A., it is apparent that prima facie case under sections 471/506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. I do not find any illegality in the order of learned Magistrate finding Prima facie case to be true against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/ Uploaded