MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The present application has been filed for quashing of the order dtd. 25/7/2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Sasaram, whereby after taking cognizance process has been issued against the petitioners for offences under Ss. 420 and 504/34 I.P.C. in connection with Complaint case No.279(c) of 2013.

(3.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14/9/2012 at about 12 0' clock all the accused persons came on the table of the complainant. Among them Vijay Kumar Gupta, an agent of sale and purchase of land, had asked the informant to purchase the land of Samrendra Kumar, who has a piece of land, which is undisputed. He had further shown the photo copy of deed and revenue rent receipt of land, which was in the name of Samrendra Kumar and Radhika Devi. Thereafter all the accused persons induced him to purchase the land. The Complainant was also in need of a piece of land, thus he became ready to purchase that land and at the price of Rs.15,34,500.00. It was decided that the complainant shall get the land registered within six months. At the same time, the complainant had paid Rs.4,11,000.00 cash as advance against that land to Samrendra Kumar. Thereafter a deed of agreement for sale was executed between complainant and Samrendra Kumar. It is further alleged that complainant had also requested to call Radhika Devi to make signature upon that deed. Then Samrendra Kumar assured him that she will make signature at later stage. On 12/12/2012 Samrendra and Vijay again came to the table of the informant and requested to provide Rs.1,40,000.00. The Complainant had again paid the said amount for which they made entry upon the deed of agreement. Thereafter the complainant had requested to Samrendra to transfer the land in his name after receiving due amount. On 22/3/2013 while the complainant was coming to the court along with witness No.5, he was intercepted by all the accused persons. They abused and threatened in the light of legal notice. The accused persons stated that they neither transfer the land nor return the money to the complainant.