Dharmendra Kumar Ram vs State of Bihar & Anr

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.05.2014 by which Charge has

been framed against the petitioner and others for the offence under Section(s) 420, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code as well as order dated 23.11.2011

passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Danapur, Patna, in Complaint Case No.615-C of 2011 by which the learned Magistrate after holding

enquiry has found prima facie case against the petitioner and others for the offence under Section(s) 420, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is matter of civil dispute. The Complainant himself has committed cheating with the petitioner. The

Complainant has, initially, executed a sale deed in favour of Rekha Devi on 10.06.2011 with respect to land bearing Khata No.1422, Plot No.2137,

Area 5 Khatha through sale deed No.3202 dated 10.06.2011. Thereafter, the Complainant has executed a Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner on

16.06.2011 appertaining to land of Khata No.1746 Plot No.1924, and Khata No.1245, Plot No.1889 total area 25 decimal. The petitioner filed mutation

case vide Case No.2363 of 2011-12 before the Circle Officer, Maner, Patna, and Jamabandi of the land, in question, has been created in favour of the

petitioner. Rent receipts have also been issued in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Complainant has executed one Sudhi Patra on 23.06.2011

vide Deed No.3927 in favour of said Rekha Devi in which he has stated that wrongly Khata no.1422 bearing Plot No.2137 has been mentioned in the

Sale Deed dated 10.06.2011, whereas, the Khata No.1746 bearing Plot No.1924 is correct in regard to 5 Khatha area. Xerox copy of the aforesaid

Sudhi Patra has been annexed as Annexure-6.

Complainant has alleged in the Complaint Petition that the alleged Sale Deed dated 16.06.2011 was got executed by the petitioner forcibly after

kidnapping the Complainant and his wife.

Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has appeared and submitted that boundaries of both the lands are different. He has further submitted that when

such infirmity in the Sale Deed executed in favour of Rekha Devi came to knowledge, then Sudhi Patra was executed by the Complainant.

This Court after hearing both the parties and perusing the materials on record finds that Sale Deed was already executed in favour of the Petitioner by

the Complainant on 16.06.2011 with respect to the land of Khata No.1746, Plot No.1924, and Khata no.1245, Plot No.1889, total area 25 decimal.

Thereafter, on the basis of aforesaid Sale Deed, the petitioner also got his name mutated in the government records after creating new Jamabandi and

rent receipt has also been issued to him. Sale Deed has also earlier been executed by the Complainant in favour of Rekha Devi on 10.06.2011 with

respect to land bearing Khata No.1422, Plot No.2137, Area 5 Khatha. After mutation in favour of the Petitioner with respect to the land, one Sudhi

Patra was executed by the Complainant in favour of Rekha Devi on 23.06.2011 vide Deed No.3927 in which he has stated that wrongly Khata

no.1422 bearing Plot No.2137 has been mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 10.06.2011 whereas, the Khata No.1746 bearing Plot No.1924 is correct in

regard to 5 Khatha area.

In this manner, such action on the part of the Complainant is totally a matter which can be adjudicated only in civil suit and no any criminal act could

be attributed to the Petitioner. In fact, from such conduct of the Complainant, petitioner has been put to loss as he has earlier purchased the land

through Sale Deed on 16.06.2011 after paying consideration money to the Petitioner and his name was also mutated.

Therefore, impugned order dated 24.05.2014 by which Charge has been framed against the petitioner as well as order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the

Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Danapur, Patna, in Complaint Case No.615-C of 2011 along with entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner is

hereby quashed.

This application is, accordingly, allowed.