SUBHASH PATHAK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding pending against him including the order dated 17.11.2008 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh took cognizance of the offence under Sections 420/467/468/406/120B Indian Penal Code in Katkamsandi (Pelawall) P.S. case No. 99 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 117 of 2007 (T.R. No. 1501 of 2010) now pending before the court Sri. R.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.

(2.) A Complaint case No. 134 of 2007 was filed by the complainant-opposite party No. 2 against the Petitioner and three others namely Damyanti Devi, Champa Devi and Sarju Pathak stating that accused Damyanti Devi and her gotni Champa Devi were known to the complainant and the members of his family since long. In the year 2002 Damyanti Devi and her gotni Chmpa Devi both had executed registered sale deed in favour of father and mother of the complainant for certain piece of land against valuable consideration and thereafter the land was transferred by putting the vendee in physical possession of the land and thereby Damyanti Devi and Champa Devi had gained the confidence of lire complainant and the members of his family. The complainant had purchased some plots in khata No. 25 in the past also. The complainant further narrated that after sometime Damyanti Devi approached him and the members of his family expressing her intention to transfer three plots measuring total area of 1.54 acres at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per 'Katha' which was accepted by the complainant and Damyanti Devi executed an agreement for sale in favour of the complainant on 16.12.2006 after accepting a cash of Rs. 30,000/- for three plots at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-per 'Katha'. In the said agreement to sale Damyanti Devi had put her left thumb impression wherein the accused Sarju Pathak stood as witness who had put his thumb impression. It was agreed in the agreement to sale that subject to payment of the balance amount Damyanti Devi would transfer the lands in favour of the complainant. It was alleged that she denied to abide by the terms of agreement inspite of Ms constant approach by offering the balance amount to Damyanti Devi for executing an absolute sale deed. In the meantime, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the Petitioner Subhash Pathak being the daughter's son of Champa Devi influenced Damyanti Devi as such the latter refused to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant inspite of the fact that she had already accepted Rs. 30,000/- as advance. The complainant further gathered that soon thereafter Damyanti Devi transferred some piece of lands by virtue of registered sale deed in favour of the Petitioner Subhash. Pathak on 22.1.2007 and thereby the complainant was defrauded by the accused persons. The complaint was sent under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure to the Katkamsandi police station for registering the case and pursuant to that Katkamsandi (Pelawall) P.S. Case No. 99 of 2007 was registered. The Investigating Officer submitted final form exonerating the criminal liability of the Petitioner and Ors. whereupon notice was issued to which the complainant filed objection petition which was treated as complaint and cognizance of the offence under Sections 420/467/468/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the accused Champa Devi, Subhash Pathak (Petitioner herein) and Suraj Pathak by disclosing that Damyanti Devi had since died.

(3.) Complainant-opposite party No. 2 entered appearance on receipt of the notice and filed counter affidavit.