BIMAL KUMAR KEDIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No. 2.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by Shri A. K. Dubey, learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal, in P. C. R. Case No. 127 of 2005 / T. R. No. 896 of 2010, whereby the application for discharge filed by the accused petitioner was rejected by the Court below and charge was framed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC.

(3.) It appears from the record that the complaint petition was filed by the O. P. No. 2 against the petitioner in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal, which was registered as P. C. R. Case No. 127 of 2005. In the said complaint petition, it was alleged that there was an agreement between the parties whereby, the petitioner had agreed to sell 21 bigha and 17 kathas of land for a consideration amount of Rs. 7,01,000/- to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant made the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- through cheque and an agreement was entered into on 27.5.2003. Again on 15.5.2003, the complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- through cheque and thereafter on 30.8.2003, another cheque of Rs. 50,000/- was given to the petitioner by the complainant and second agreement was entered into on 20.11.2003. It is further alleged, thereafter by way of draft and cash, Rs. 2,15,000/- was again paid and third agreement was entered into between the parties and again fourth agreement was also entered into on 13.8.2004, when the complainant again paid Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner through cheque. Further payments were also made by cheques and drafts and in this way, total amount of Rs. 4,98,000/- was paid to the petitioner and Rs. 2,03,000/- remained to be paid by the complainant to the petitioner. Thereafter the complainant tried to pay the balance money to the petitioner and to get the sale deed executed in his favour, but the same was not done. Alleging that the petitioner was having the dishonest intention from the very beginning, as the complainant had learnt that late father of the petitioner had gifted the property in favour of his grandson and subsequently 4 bighas, 11 Kathas and 19 dhurs of land were sold to different persons on the basis of power of attorney executed by the petitioner, the complaint petition was filed in the Court below.