TAPAS SARKAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 323/426/420/406/467/452/468/387/379/419 and 120B of the I.P.C.

(3.) MR . Indrajit Sinha appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the innocent and has not committed any offence. It is not disputed that the petitioner agreed to sell the land at Rs.50 lakhs for which an agreement was entered into between the parties on 13.12.2010 and received a cheque of Rs.11,000/ -but no agreement was entered between the parties on 12.12.2010 as that day was Sunday. The petitioner never visited the office of complainant on 19.11.10 or at any point of time nor the petitioner ever informed the complainant about institution of case by family members of Uttara Challak and it is also false to allege that the complainant paid Rs.25 lakhs to her to settle the dispute. It was further submitted that the petitioner has no concern with Uttar Chalak or anyone related to her . It is further submitted that the petitioner has not executed any agreement on 6.1.11 in favour of complainant upon receipt of Rs.5 lakhs or so called power of attorney, said to be executed by petitioner is false and forged, The petitioners in fact the actual owner and is in possession of the land in question and the petitioner though entered into agreement with complainant to sell the land after receiving Rs.11,000/ -as advance, and the balance amount of Rs.49,89,000/ -was stipulated to be paid within 30 days but the same was not paid even after 3 months. Accordingly as per agreement the advance money was forfeited. But the petitioner was informed on 3.3.11 that the complainant by producing an unknown person got executed and registered a power of attorney in his favour. Thereafter, he obtained certified copy of power of attorney and sale deed, where from he could see that his signature was forged and the photograph affixed on power of attorney was not his own. Thereafter, the petitioner made complaint to the Sub Registrar, Jamshedpur and D.C. Jamshedpur and when no action was taken, a complaint case was filed vide C/1 Case No. 758 of 11 and the petitioner found that the complainant started making construction, he initiated a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and only after institution of above case, this present case was filed by the complaint. Thus, the petitioner has not committed any offence rather he has been cheated by the complainant.