RAM CHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by the three petitioners who have been arrayed as accused in complaint case No. 699 (C) of 2005 is for the quashing of the Order dated, 22nd July, 2006 passed therein by Sri satyendra Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First class, Buxar, whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 420, 120b I. P. C against the petitioners.

(2.) THE complainant, one Udhari Singh, impleaded herein as opposite party No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint, inter alia, alleging the commission of the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. According to the recital in the complaint, Accused No. 3, Muneshwari Devi is aunt of the complainant and she on 10th October, 2004 executed a Mahadnama, in favour of the wife of the complainant in lieu whereof a sum of Rs. 50,000 was paid to her in presence of witnesses and the balance amount was agreed to be paid after execution of the sale deed. It was disclosed that accused no. l, Ramchandra Singh, and accused No. 2, Munji Singh, were respectively the brother and nephew of Muneshwari Devi and that Ramchandra Singh and his son-in-law, Bishwanath Singh, were also witnesses in the Mahadnama. It is alleged that knowing fully well that Muneshwari Devi had already sold half of the lands falling in her share to some other person, yet ramchandra and Munji figured as witnesses to the sale deed. It is further alleged that since the lands were not registered as per the stipulated time, a notice was sent but notwithstanding the same, the lands have neither been registered nor the money advanced returned.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that even assuming prima facie all the allegations in the complaint to be true they merely amount to a breach of contract and could not give rise to criminal prosecution more so when the complainant's wife, the beneficiary under the Mahadnama and sale deed had filed title suit No. l of 2005 for a decree for specific performance of contract which is pending adjudication before the Subordinate Judge, buxar. It was further submitted that there was nothing in the complaint to show that the respondents had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the consideration money in part was parted with by the complainant's wife nor did the complaint indicate that the petitioners had induced the complainant or his wife to pay the amount parted with. In support of his submissions the learned counsel sought to place, reliance on the decisions of Hari prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar surekha; Nageshwar Prasad Singh v. Narayan Singh; and India Oil Corporation v. NEPC India.