Manorma Devi wife of Sudama Sao vs The State of Bihar

Despite repeated calls, no body appears on behalf of the

petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the informant.

By invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short '' CrPC ''), the

present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the

order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Gaya in Tr. No.2835 of 2014 arising out of Rampur P.S. Case No.98 of 2007 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been

taken under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406 and 420 / 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and the petitioner and one Gautam Kumar Sinha @ Mantu

have been summoned to face trial.

The allegations as alleged by the informant in the first

information report is that on 30.04.2007 he entered into an agreement

with one Munni Devi wife of Vijay Prasad Singh and Mantoo Kumar

son of Vijay Prasad Singh to purchase a house standing over Khata

No.2, plot no.23054/02, 15692/385(g) at Mohalla Geywal Bigha,

Gaya against the consideration amount of rupees two lacs. It is alleged

that the amount of rupees two lacs has been paid to the accused Munni

Devi and Gautam Kumar Sinha @ Mantu in different installments but

despite taking full and final payment they did not execute the deed in

respect of transfer of the aforesaid land. It is alleged that on

02.08.2007 the informant came to know that Munni Devi and Gautam

Kumar Sinha @ Mantu had gone to the office of the Sub. Registrar for

execution of registered deed in favour of the petitioner Manorma

Devi.

On the basis of the aforesaid allegation made in the FIR

a police case was registered on 03.09.2007 and investigation was

taken up. On completion of investigation, a report under Section

173(2) of the CrPC was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Gaya vide charge-sheet no.189/12 on 31.08.2012 against

Gautam Kumar Sinha @ Mantu and Manorma Devi under Sections

467, 468, 471, 406 and 420 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was

mentioned in the police report that since Munni Devi has already died

she is not being sent up for trial.

On receipt of the police report after taking into

consideration the materials available on record, the learned Magistrate

took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and

Gautam Kumar Sinha @ Mantu by order dated 08.11.2012. The

aforesaid order dated 08.11.2012 is under challenge in the present

application preferred under Section 482 of the CrPC.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that from perusal of the FIR itself it would be evident that no

allegation whatsoever is made out against the petitioner. She is neither

alleged to have cheated any one nor misappropriated any amount nor

forged any document.

On the other hand, the contention of the learned counel

for the informant is that the petitioner agreed to purchase the house

standing over Khata No.2, Plot No.23054/02 and 15692/385(g)

knowing fully well that the informant had already made full and final

payment to the vendor for transfer of the said house. He submitted

that the offences alleged are clearly attracted against the petitioner also.

Learned counsel for the State has supported the

contentions advanced on behalf of the informant.

I have heard respective counsel for the parties and

carefully perused the record.

In my considered opinion, launching of the prosecution

case as against the petitioner is a gross abuse of the process of the

court. There is no allegation that the petitioner dishonestly induced the

informant for delivery of property or committed any offence of

criminal breach of trust or cheated the complainant in any manner.

There is also no allegation that the petitioner committed any act or

omission which comes under the definition of forgery of valuable

security, will etc. for the purpose of cheating nor there is any

allegation against her of using as genuine a forged document.

Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,

the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468,

471, 406 and 420 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code are clearly wanting.

Apparently, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has mechanically

taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner also.

In that view of the matter, I set aside the impugned

order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Gaya in Tr. No.2835 of 2014 arising out of Rampur P.S. Case No.98 of 2007 so far as the petitioner is concerned.

The petition stands allowed.