FULCHAND PURAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2011 passed by Shri Rajeev Ranjan, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No.645 of 2011, whereby the complaint petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed after inquiry by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in short compass. The petitioner claiming to be Power of Attorney holder by one Swami Atulanand Puri, has filed the complaint case stating that the land in question originally belonged to Swami Achyutyanand Puri, of Parmarth Sadan, Tupudana, Hatia, Ranchi, which he had obtained from one Durga Prasad Gupta, through registered Patta dated 20.11.1989. Subsequently said Swami Achyutanand Puri transferred the land in dispute in favour of his deciple Atualand Puri by way of registered Deed of Gift on 22.2.1999. It is stated in the complaint petition that said Atualand Puri, being always busy with religious works, executed a registered Power of Attorney bearing No.969 dated 15.3.2011 in favour of the petitioner with respect to the disputed property. In spite of that, the accused persons namely, Swami Purnanand Puri, Kali Prajapati, and Amritanand, fraudulently transfered the land in dispute, in favour of the accused Rakhi Kumar by a registered Sale Deed dated 28.6.2010 and accordingly, the complaint petition was filed against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 418, 420, 468, 467, 471 and 120B of the IPC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, at this stage, the Court below has taken into consideration the defense of the accused persons which the Court could not have taken into account. Learned counsel submitted that it is settled law that at the time of enquiry, the Court below can only take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant recorded on S.A. and the witnesses examined by the complainant in the enquiry stage, and if the offence is made out, the process has to be issued to the accused to face the trial. But the Court below has taken into consideration the fact that Swami Purnanand Puri became the president of Permarth Sewa Sadan and executed the deed of transfer in favour of the co -accused Rakhi Kumar, whish is the defence of the accused persons, which could not be taken into consideration by the Court below at this stage, and as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.