DINA NATH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

(2.) The petitioner has filed instant application praying for quashing the order dtd. 16/11/2022 passed in Goraul P.S. Case no. 10 of 2022 whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Vaishali, Hajipur was pleased to take cognizance under Sec. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The prosecution case as per the written statement dtd. 9/1/2022 of the opposite party no.2- informant addressed to the Officer In-charge of Goraul Police Station alleges inter alia that he resides in Patna and runs a coaching. It is stated that in course of his work, he became acquainted with the three accused persons including the petitioner herein. Slowly they became close to him. Subsequently the petitioner made a request to help him in the marriage of his daughter. The informant states that the petitioner took out a non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rs.1,000.00 and stated that he would execute an agreement for sale on the said document with respect to an immovable property measuring an area of 1200 sq ft. at the rate of Rs.23.75 lakhs per katha. The informant states that being influenced with the talk of the petitioner, he gave an advance of Rs.3.75 lakhs to the petitioner who executed an agreement for sale, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2. The informant further states that on the request by him to the petitioner to execute the sale deed, he asked for the balance of the total consideration amount of Rs.23.75 lakhs. The informant gave a sum of Rs.95,000.00 on 22/7/2013, Rs.3.00 lakhs on 9/9/2013 and again Rs.3.00 lakhs on 21/9/2013. Thereafter, it is stated that he paid a further amount of Rs.11.00 lakhs in cash on 12/2/2019 for which no document was prepared. The same was given in presence of witnesses Musfir Prasad Singh and Devendra Singh. Thus a total sum of Rs.21.7 lakhs has been paid but the petitioner, inspite of request by the informant has refused to execute the sale deed pursuant to the said agreement for sale. Hence the instant FIR.