SAH AJAM KHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20th August, 2004, whereby cognizance has been taken of the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in Complaint Case No.60 of 2003.

(2.) A complaint was lodged alleging that the accused persons had executed and registered a sale deed, bearing No.354 of 1998, in favour of the complainant, purportedly transferring land of Plot No.998, Khata No.113, measuring an area 0.03 acre and Plot No.999, Khata No.140, measuring an area 0.02 acre of village Chandwa, P.S. Chandwa, District Latehar for consideration money of Rs.30,000/ -, but when the complainant applied for mutation before the revenue authority, it was refused on the ground that the vendors name was not mutated and his name did not find recorded in the Revenue Register -II. It has been alleged that the accused suppressed the said fact and induced the complainant to purchase the land, knowing fully well that the mutation of the land was not in his name and has committed the said penal offence.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is no denial that the accused petitioner had executed and registered the sale deed of the land, which was purchased by him by virtue of a registered sale deed and over which he had valid right, title and interest. It has been stated that since the vendor himself had purchased the land in the recent past, he could not get an opportunity to get his name mutated in the office of the revenue authority. The complainant -purchaser was quite aware of the fact and knowing fully well that the petitioner has purchased the land by virtue of a registered sale deed recently had purchased the land, in question, by virtue of the registered sale deed duly executed on th March, 1998. In so far as the acquisition of title is concerned, there is no allegation of any defect in title or any misrepresentation to that regard by the petitioner. Only allegation is that the revenue authority refused to mutate the petitioners name on the basis of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the complainant. It has been submitted that for any such order passed by the revenue authority, the vendor -petitioner cannot be held to be liable for any penal offence. The order passed by the revenue authority is also appealable and revisable, but the complainant did not prefer any appeal or revision and on the contrary has lodged the said frivolous complaint against the petitioner.