BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order impugned dated 2.7.2003, in C.P. Case No. 355 of 2002 whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against them. It is further prayed that the entire criminal proceedings, presently pending in the Court of Sri Uttam Anand, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Chas at Bokaro with respect to the above complaint case be quashed.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that opposite party No. 2 filed complaint case being C.P. Case No. 355 of 2002 against the petitioners alleging that the petitioner No. 2 had entered into written agreement with the opposite party No. 2 for sale of her property situated at Mouza No. 30 appertaining of Khata No. 566, plot No. 7013, measuring an area of 3567 sq. ft. against Ekrarnama and by way of advance, the opposite party No. 2 paid a sum of 51,000/ - to the petitioner No. 1 in presence of the witnesses. The agreement was prepared by one Bir Bahadur Singh, Advocate with the assurance that on the return of the son of the petitioners, sale deed would be executed in favour of opposite party No. 2. It was alleged that at the time of the said agreement it was convinced by the petitioner No. 1 that he was the absolute owner of the property and the same was gifted to his wife, i.e. petitioner No. 2. On 27.8.2002 two brothers of the petitioner No. 1 came to opposite party No. 2 and appraised that the petitioners had entered into agreement with him fraudulently and that the petitioner had obtained advance with respect to such property in which the brothers of the petitioner No. 1 were co -sharers. A registered notice thereafter was sent to the petitioners which was not received and ultimately the opposite party No. 2 visited the house of the petitioners for the execution of the sale deed and also disclosed that his two brothers were co -sharers of the said property whereupon the petitioners threatened the opposite party No. 2 with the consequences and refused having taken any advance against the proposed execution of the said land.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel further contended that from the bare perusal of the complaint case it would be evident that opposite party No. 2 had not disclosed the total consideration amount for transfer for land in question except the advance amount of Rs. 51.000/ -alleged to have been accepted by the petitioners on 15.6.2001. The socalled agreement has not been brought on record either of complaint case or Title Suit which was required to be registered under the Registration Act and, therefore, If there was an agreement and acknowledgement of receiving of Rs. 51.000/ - it has got no legal entity in terms of provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Registration Act.