MD MOHIUDDIN @ MD UDDIN RAIN SON OF DOMI RAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND BACHCHA YADAV SON OF LATE NATHUNI YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who along with another has been arrayed as accused in Complaint case bearing C.R. No. 206 of 2002 is aggrieved by and has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 28.2.2005 passed therein by Sri R.N.P. Bharti, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhanjharpur, whereby and where under he has taken cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120B I.P.C. against both the arraigned accused including the petitioner.

(2.) The prosecution case is based upon the complaint petition filed on 15.3.2002 by one Bachcha Yadav, impleaded herein as Opp. Party No. 2, who inter alia stated therein that accused No. 1 Joginder Jha was a Munshi in the Jhanjharpur Sub Registration Office who was primarily given to cheating innocent people and accused No. 2, Md. Mohiuddin alias Md. Uddin Rain (the petitioner herein) was an expert in purchasing lands without making any payment. It is said that when the complainant fell in dire need of money for the marriage of his daughter, he agreed to sell 5 kathas 10 dhurs of his lands appertaining to Khesra No. 8052 (old)/27 (new) in mauza Parsauni to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 9000/- only which the petitioner promised to pay at the Registration Office. Accordingly, on 20.12.2001, the sale deed was scripted at the Registration Office and when the complainant demanded the money, both the accused assured him that the consideration would be paid after the registration of the sale deed. The assurance notwithstanding the petitioner again postponed the payment till the complainant signed the chirkut. This time the complainant, annoyed by the conduct of the accused refused to sign unless the money was paid. Later, it is alleged, the complainant came to know through rumours that the accused persons got one Ram Japu Paswan to impersonate as the complainant and by obtaining his thumb impression on the chirkut obtained the registered sale deed. It is also alleged that the complainant arranged for a panchayati in the village which they did not attended and instead abused him. The complainant claims to have approached the police who refused to institute a case.

(3.) Denying the manner of occurrence as alleged, it has been submitted that the prosecution version is full of concoction and fabrication and that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in this case due to previous grudge. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has curiously not revealed or divulged the cause for such grudge. It was also submitted that it would be apparent from perusal of the sale deed that the same had been executed after receipt of the consideration and even if the payment had not been made the complainant ought to have raised objections at the time of registration or ought to have taken steps for the cancellation of the sale deed, none of which were restored to. The further submission of the petitioner was that the accusations as alleged were purely civil in nature for which the criminal law could not be invoked. Finally, it was submitted that no offence under Section 420 I.P.C. was made out and the cognizance under Section 406 I.P.C. was time barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. as cognizance for an alleged offence taking place on 20.12.2001 was taken after 3 years on 28.12.2005.