KAMTA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by two of the six persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 265 of 2006. is for the quashing of the order dated 8.5.2006 passed therein by Sri D.S. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gaya, whereby he has taken cognizance against all the accused including the petitioners under Sections 420 and 120B I.P.C. and has also summoned them.

(2.) ONE Nawal Kishore Singh, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint alleging inter alia that he is married to one Savitri Devi who happens to be the only child of Keshwar Mahto and after the death of Keshwar Mahto, all his movable and immovable property devolved upon Savitri Devi being the only legal heir of Keshwar Mahto and the said property was being taken care of by her sons and complainant who is her husband. It is said that the said ancestral lands were mutated in favour of Savitri Devi and her three sons and rent having been paid rent receipts were issued. It is said that on 2.9.2005, Kamta Prasad Singh and Satendra Singh, the brothers of the complainant by means of registered sale deed sold 25 decimals and 13 decimals of land respectively appertaining to khata no. 78 (new) and plot no. 1372 (new) and 3103 (new) to accused Kishundeo Yadav and the deed was registered and accused Dharmendra Kumar, the son of Kamta Prasad Singh and Jitendra Kumar, figured as witnesses thereupon and the sale deed was scripted by accused Birendra Kumar. It is alleged that earlier also the petitioners had sold the land of complainant illegally for which Complaint Case No. 1100 of 2005 had been filed. It is further alleged that when the complainant received information regarding the aforesaid illegal acts of the petitioners then he came to file the instant complaint case on 21.2.2006. The procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was adopted wherein apart from the statement of the complainant on S.A., 4 other witnesses, named in the complaint petition, were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and on the materials available on record cognizance as aforesaid was taken.

(3.) IT was submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case based on concocted facts. In this connection, it was sought to be submitted that the photographs of vendors and vendees are pasted in the sale deed and, therefore, the question of false impersonation does not arise. It was also submitted that from perusal of khata no. 78, it is apparently clear that both the petitioners have got share of 8 Ansh whereas Keshwar Mahto, the father -in -law of the complainant has got a share of 3 Ansh. It would also appear from khatiyan that the area of plot no. 1372 is 50 decimals and the area of plot no. 2103 is 26 decimals and according to the complaint petition areas sold by the petitioners is to the extent of 1/2 of the area in both the plot. It was also submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint petition are accepted at their face value, it can safely be submitted that the petitioners have sold some of their own property as both of them have a share to the extent of 8 Ansh. The further submission is that as a matter of fact, Savitri Devi, had herself sold 11 decimals of land appertaining to plot no. 1283. and khata no. 78 vide sale deed on 26.7.2005 to Balchand Yadav and also sold 31 decimals of land appertaining to plot no. 2622 and plot no. 2576 to one Rajbali Prajapati for which Title Suit No. 33 of 2004 was pending before the Munsif -lll, Gaya.