RUDEN TIRKEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. No one appears for the complainant opposite party No.2 in spite of the fact that the opposite party No.2 has appeared through advocate upon notice and the name of the learned counsel appears in the cause list. It is also apparent that the case was taken up on 6.8.2012 and in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 had not appeared, the case was adjourned in order to give a chance to him. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 22.8.2012 and on the said date also, no one had appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2. Today also, no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2003 passed by Kumari Ranjana Asthana, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 815 of 1999, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C for discharge, was rejected by the Court below.

(3.) The petitioner has been made accused in Complaint Case No.815 of 1999, filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, wherein, it is alleged by the complainant that he had purchased the lands in question, from the petitioner for consideration amount of Rs.44,000/-. It is stated in the complaint petition that before purchase, the necessary permission under Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was obtained by the accused petitioner by filing an application before the Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi and after getting the permission from the Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi by order dated 31.7.1990 in Case No. M-574 R 8 II of 1989-90, the sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant on 13.9.1991, which was registered vide Registration No.10440 dated 13.9.1991. The lands in question were also mutated in favour of the complainant in Mutation Case No.130 of 1992-93 and since then, the complainant is paying rent to the State Government. It is alleged in the complaint petition that when the petitioner wanted to construct his house on the lands, in question, in the year 1999, he was objected by one Smt.Krishna Bhasin and thereafter, upon enquiry, it was found that there was already a title suit with respect to the said land, in question, with one Jadu Nandan Tiwari, who had agreed to purchase the land through an agreement with the recorded tenant. In the said title suit, the petitioner had appeared and filed a compromise petition, admitting the right, title and interest of the said Jadu Nandan Tiwari and accordingly, the name of Jadu Nandan Tiwari was mutated in the Government Sirista. The said Smt. Krishna Bhasin had purchased the land, in question, from the said Jadu Nandan Tiwari. Accordingly, the complaint petition was filed by the complainant, alleging the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the I.P.C. against the petitioner as the petitioner had sold the lands to the complainant knowing these facts and also knowing that he was not having the right, title and possession over the lands in question.