KEDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code ') preferred by Kedar Singh and six others, accused in Complaint Case no. 1688. of 1997 corresponding to Trial Case no. 805 of 1997, pending in the court of a Judicial Magistrate, first class at Gopalganj, for quashing of the impugned order dated 4.7.1997 recorded in that case by which the learned Magistrate had ordered for issuance of process against the petitioners having found prima -facie evidence against the accused/petitioners for having committed offence under sections 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that one Yogendra Singh filed the aforesaid complaint (Annexure -1) against the petitioners first stating therein the family tree. As per allegations Pukaro Kuer had inherited the property of her father, Rajnandan Singh, whereas accused nos. 1 to 5 were Kedar Singh, his son and sons of Paras Nath Singh, another 'Gotia '. It was alleged that Pukaro Kuer was illiterate and used to be ill therefore she wanted to sell her property at which accused/petitioners no. 1 to 5 agreed to purchase her three bighas land for a consideration of rupees fifty thousands and they brought Pukaro Kuer to the Registry Office on 3.9.1996. They got a document prepared and asked Pukaro Kuer to put her left thumb impression on the same assuring her that the money would be paid before the Registrar. They filed the document in the court of Registrar but after some time they informed Pukaro Kuer that since the money could not be brought from the Bank, they would come other day for getting the registration done. Further allegation is that thereafter Pukaro Kuer asked them to get the document registered by paying money but they avoided to do so and thereafter rumour floated that the document had already been registered. From Registry office the complainant came to know that the accused had purchased document for 'Bakshishnama ' over which the other two accused/petitioners signed as witnesses and without knowledge of Pukaro Kuer, on 14.11.1996 they got another lady presented before Sub - Registrar, Gopalganj, and also got the document registered. Further allegation is that thereafter Pukaro Kuer had sold the lands to the sons of the complainant and another 'pattidar ', Kailash.

(3.) THE second argument of the learned counsel was that from the complaint as well from the evidence brought on the record in course of enquiry no nexus of the petitioners with the alleged offence could be established, hence on that ground also this application was fit to be allowed. In other words, the argument of the learned counsel was that complaint petition and the materials on record did not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners.