CHANDESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan, in Complaint Case No.1639 of 2009 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant and the petitioner were four brothers of which the eldest had died in 1967 and the petitioner was entrusted with the management of the joint family property in 2008. When the Complainant visited his village, he found out that one Nathuni Singh was cultivating the land which belonged to his family and on enquiry, he found out that the petitioner had exchanged the lands on a consideration amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- ,even though, the entire lands did not belong to the petitioner. It was further alleged that the petitioner was entitled to only 1/4th of the joint family property and the petitioner had committed a criminal offence by entering into a deed of exchange with regard to the joint family property and had also defalcated the consideration amount.

(2.) THE Complainant annexed some documents pertaining to the land along with the Complaint. THE petitioner submits that in fact, there were two sale deeds executed in the year 1955 on the basis of which the family of the petitioner had come in possession of the Suit lands. In both the sale deeds, only the petitioner and the Complainant have been mentioned as the purchasers. It was further submitted that on the basis of these two sale deeds, the family came in possession on 1 Bigha 15 Katthas of land and when a difficulty arose in managing the lands, the petitioner exchanged 14 Katthas of land by a Registered Deed of Exchange with Nathuni Singh in the year 1985. THE Complainant knew about such an exchange but, he kept quiet for the next 24 years and then filed this case belatedly on 17.7.2004. On the other hand, the counsel for the Complainant submits that no doubt, the Sale Deed contained only the names of the petitioner and the Complainant as Purchasers but being a joint family, the lands in effect belonged to the entire family and, therefore, the Complainant was entitled to only 1/4th of the share as alleged in the Complaint. THE further submission is that the Complainant could know about the misdeed of the petitioner only in the year 2008 as has been mentioned in the Complaint and, therefore, there is no delay in filing the Complaint.