MD.ISLAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner, who was arrayed as one of the accused in a complaint case filed by O.P. No. 2, has challenged the judgment dated 28.4.2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge, XIII, Dhanbad, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the order of learned trial Court, dismissing the complaint under Sec.203, Cr PC and directed the learned trial Court to make further enquiry into the case for taking cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint petition.

(3.) IT is said that after the purchase the complainant asked the accused Hafizullah and Md. Islam to vacate the premises under their occupation but Md. Islam, i.e. the present petitioner informed him that he was the owner of the said two rooms by virtue of purchase by registered sale deed executed by Smt. Sumitra Devi and he produced a registered sale deed before the complainant and then the complainant was surprised to learn that in fact Smt. Sumitra Devi had already sold a part of the land to Md. Islam and this fact was mischievously concealed by the accused persons. It was further alleged that in the complaint that in the sale deed which was executed by Smt. Sumitra Devi in favour of Ramesh Kumar Singhal the accused Md. Hafizullah, i.e. the father of the present petitioner also signed as a witness, which showed that the accused Md. Hafizullah and his son Md. Islam, i.e. the present petitioner connived with Smt. Sumitra devi in making and executing the said sale deed by giving fraudulent and false declaration.