ABHINANDAN PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) IN this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 529 of 2012 including the order dated 06.04.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division III, Koderma whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) A complaint case was filed by the opposite party no. 2 herein in which it was stated that an advertisement was published in daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' being advertisement cum auction notice on 06.05.2011 wherein bids were invited from the public for sale of a house belonging to Shyam Deo Prasad Singh situated in Khata No. 40/2009 Plot No. 68 area 8 decimals. It was further stated in the complaint that Shyam Deo Prasad Singh had taken loan from the bank and as he failed to clear the dues, the petitioners took possession of the house and wanted to recover the dues from the auction sale of the said property. It was further stated in the advertisement that the intending purchasers can inspect the house property along with the petitioner no. 2. It is alleged that when the complainant went to inspect the house along with the petitioner no. 2, the house was found locked and the petitioner told him that the house is vacant and is in possession of the bank. Believing the statement of the petitioners, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 4,20,000/ - as earnest money and made a bid for Rs. 42,00,000/ -. The bid of the complainant was accepted on 17.06.2011 and he was directed to make the balance payment within 15 days. It is alleged that on 18.06.2011, when the complainant visited the property, he found it in possession of Shyam Deo Prasad Singh at which the complainant asked the bank to give him vacant possession otherwise the balance amount shall not be paid. It is also alleged that thereafter the petitioners have filed Case No. 27 of 2011 and 28 of 2011 before the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma on 18.10.2011 for getting vacant possession of the house in question and pursuant to order dated 17.04.2012, the vacant possession of the house of Shyam Deo Prasad Singh was obtained. Subsequent thereto the complainant had made verbal and written request to the petitioner to transfer the house property in his favour, but he failed to do so and on 12.07.2012, the petitioner no. 1 informed the complainant that since he had not abided by the terms of the auction notice, the earnest money deposited by him has been forfeited. Based on the aforesaid allegations, C. P. Case No. 529 of 2012 was instituted.