ANAND PRASAD RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two petitioners, who are said to be vendee of a piece of land appertaining to Plot No.858 and Khata No.34, situated at Mohalla- Rajapur, Patna, have approached this Court, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.8.1996 passed by Sri Bimal Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. They have also prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding, which has been initiated pursuant to Complaint Case No.315 (C) of 1996. By the said order dated 13.8.1996, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Sri Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has challenged the order of cognizance as well as prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding in the case on the ground that on a bare perusal of the complaint petition it appears that it is solely and solely a civil dispute and no offence is made out. He submits that allowing the present proceeding pursuant to the complaint petition in the case will amount to abuse of the process of the court. He further submits that though he had already paid entire consideration money before execution of the sale deed, subsequently the present complaint petition was filed by the complainant in a designed manner. It has also been argued that the complainant/Opp.Party no.2 has filed a suit vide Title Suit No. 382 of 1995, which is pending in the court of Sub Judge I, Patna. He has referred to paragraph 10 of the complaint petition, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Arjun Prasad Singh, learned counsel appears on behalf of Opp.Party no.2. He has referred to the complaint petition and also referred to Annexures along with his counter affidavit. He opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the complainant was cheated by the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners falsely persuaded the complainant that they are going to execute a deed for sale of agreement. They also persuaded the complainant to go along with them to Calcutta for executing the deed for sale of agreement. He submits that under that impression, he executed the deed. The complainant was not aware as to whether it was an absolute sale deed. Subsequently, he noticed that he was cheated and actually without making payment of entire consideration money the petitioners got the sale deed executed from the complainant. On these grounds he has submitted that the petition is liable to be rejected.