ANNU SINHA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") is directed against the order dated 01.11.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtas at Sasaram in Complaint Case No.1063 of 2009, whereby after taking cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") process has been issued against the petitioners under section 204 of the Code.

(3.) The complainant (opposite party no.2) filed the aforementioned Complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas stating therein that the petitioners own and possess land measuring 50 bighas situated at village Bahera, P.S.Sheosagar, District- Rohtas. The complainant negotiated with them to purchase 2 acres and 6 decimals of land, the detail of which has been given in the complaint, and after negotiation an amount of rupees one lakh was paid as advance to petitioner no.1 on 15th May, 2008. It was agreed that the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs would be paid to the petitioners at the time of registration of sale deed on 30th June, 2008. Thereafter the petitioners did not turn up for execution of sale deed on 30th June, 2008. The complainant approached them again and requested to honour the agreement. They assured that the sale deed would be registered within fifteen days but they failed to fulfil their promise even this time and did not turn up at Sasaram to execute the sale deed. The complainant came to know that the accused persons wanted to sell the property in question to some other persons. When the complainant saw that on 29.01.2008 the petitioners came to Sasaram from Patna to sell the property in question to other persons, he raised protest in this regard. Thereafter, the petitioners promised to execute the sale deed on 30th Jan., 2008. Even on 30th Jan., 2008 they did not turn up to execute the sale deed. It has further been alleged that petitioner no.1 made a further demand of Rs.2 lakhs as advance so that the sale deed may be executed in favour of the complainant. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.2 lakhs in cash to petitioner no.1 on 25.02.2009, who handed it over to her son Santanu Sinha for counting. After counting the amount of Rs.2 lakhs paid to the petitioners, they assured to execute the sale deed shortly but they failed to fulfil their promise and the sale deed was never executed by them in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice through post but the same was returned unserved. Lastly, it has been alleged that the complainant came to know through rumour that the property in question was sold to some other persons by the petitioners. According to the complainant, petitioners have thus cheated him.