JAMUNA CHAUDHRY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 31.3.1999 passed in Complaint Case No.1702 of 1998/Tr. No.813 of 1999 by Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the petitioners had sold a piece of land to the complainant appertaining to Khata No.535 plot no.483 for an amount of Rs.5,000/-. After completion of sale, the complainant came in possession over the land in question. However, about fifteen days prior to the filing of the complaint petition the accused persons intimated the complainant that the said land was not transferred to him and he was asked to vacate the land question. Thereafter, on enquiry the complainant learnt that he was cheated by the accused persons and Rs.5,000/- was defrauded by the accused persons by way of transferring the land of some other persons appertaining to Khata No.435, plot no.478 measuring 11 Dhurs. After noticing that the complainant was cheated by both the accused persons, a complaint was filed by the complainant bearing Complaint Case No.1702 of 1998 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj. In support of complaint petition the complainant examined two witnesses and also some documents were adduced before the court and after being satisfied with the materials available on the record, by order dated 31.3.1999 the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences as mentioned above.

(3.) Mr. Raghav Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that the order of cognizance is bad in law in view of the provisions contained in section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that in this case if for the time being, it is assumed that fraud was committed, the said fraud was committed in the year 1989. After lapse of about nine years from the date of occurrence, the learned Magistrate was not authorized to take cognizance for the offences as alleged by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further challenged the order of cognizance on the ground that the dispute appears to be purely civil in nature and for that very dispute the complainant may not be allowed to use criminal court. On the aforesaid two grounds learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance.