JITENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of order dated 1.12.1998 passed by Shri A.J. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur in Complaint Case No.134 (C) of 1995/Trial No.396 of 1999 whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed the petition filed by the complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed for summoning the accused to face trial along with other two accused persons.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that on 19.5.1995 a complaint petition was filed by opposite party no.2 vide Complaint Case No.134 (C) of 1995 against three accused persons including this petitioner for the offences under Sections 406, 120B, 167, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint case that opposite party nos.1 and 2 in presence of this petitioner had taken an advance of Rs.1,25,000/- for transferring two kathas of land of Plot No.469 to opposite party no.2. The land was earlier in the name of Bimla Devi wife of Dasrath Mahto. Both Bimla Devi and Dasrath Mahto have been arrayed as accused nos.1 and 2 in the complaint case. It was alleged in the complaint petition that while the agreement for sale was being entered into between the complainant and the accused Bimla Devi, the petitioner was also present and actively participated at the time of agreement to sell. It was alleged in the complaint petition that after taking advance money, accused Bimla Devi never executed sale deed in favour of complainant. It was further disclosed that repeatedly the complainant persuaded the accused Bimla Devi for executing the sale deed but she on one pretext or the other delayed the matter. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that accused Bimla Devi had already transferred the land in question in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the complaint petition was filed against three accused persons including the petitioner. In support of the complaint, during enquiry, witnesses were examined. However, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 16.8.1995 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 406, 465 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Bimla Devi and Dasrath Mahto. However, the learned Magistrate did not proceed against this petitioner. After number of witnesses were examined during the trial, a petition was filed on behalf of opposite party no.2/complainant on 18.8.1998 under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein to summon this petitioner to face trial along with two accused persons. By order dated 1.12.1998, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition and directed for summoning the petitioner to face trial along with two accused persons.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order dated 1.12.1998, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. The present petition was admitted on 2.3.2000. While admitting the case, this Court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceeding in Complaint Case No.134 (C) of 1995/Trial No.396 of 1995 pending in the court of Sri A.J. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing.