Ram Ekbal Singh vs The State of Bihar

Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Heard counsels for the parties.

It has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 died during subsistence of this application. The petition, so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, becomes infructuous.

Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have challenged the order dated 3.5.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, in connection with Complaint Case No. 382 of 2008, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 406, 420, 467, 460, 471, 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

The complainant has alleged that on the assurance of being provided with a job of Anganwari Sevika, she became ready for alienating the land which she had inherited from her father. It has further been alleged that she was made to sign on the documents in the Registry Office in a fraudulent manner. There was no intention on the part of the petitioners to provide her with a job.

The recitals of the sale deed have purposefully been inserted, especially the consideration amount of Rs. 60,000/- for the purpose of transfer of the land in favour of Ram Eqbal Singh, petitioner No. 1 (since deceased). When this matter was discerned by the brothers of Opposite Party No. 2, the complaint came to be lodged.

In the aforesaid complaint, the learned Magistrate, after an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, took cognizance under the various sections of the Indian Penal Code, about which reference has been made earlier in this order.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that an absolutely false case has been lodged for the purpose of defeating the claim of the purchaser of the property.

Opposite Party No. 2 got some portion of the land in the village of her father after his death. She along with her husband was in peaceful cultivable possession of the said plot of land. For consideration amount of Rs. 60,000/-, the land in question was conveyed to Ram Eqbal Singh, petitioner No. 1, (since deceased). Petitioner No. 2 is the son of Ram Eqbal Singh and petitioner No. 3 is one of the attesting witnesses to the sale deed.

It is further stated on behalf of the petitioners that on every page of the sale deed, not only the complainant - Opposite Party No. 2 has put her thumb impression, but her husband Yogendra Bhagat has also put his signature. There is nothing on record to doubt that such conveyance of property was made after observing all formalities and after accepting the consideration amount of Rs. 60,000/-.

That the brothers of Opposite Party No. 2 created hindrance over the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the purchased property is evident from the fact that wife of Ram Eqbal Singh had to lodge a case vide Turkaulia PS Case No. 32 of 2008. Because of the dispute over the possession of the land in question, a 107 Cr.P.C. proceeding was initiated. A 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding also was initiated considering the gravity of the situation and the possibility of blood shed between the rival claimants of the property.

The narration of events in the complaint petition makes it very obvious that after the land was conveyed to the father of petitioner No. 2, the brothers of Opposite Party No. 2 started creating disturbances. The above contention is further buttressed by the fact that upon own showing of Opposite Party No. 2 the land which was conveyed to Ram Eqbal Singh never came in possession of Opposite Party No. 2, but one of her brothers, who in the past had sold the same to one Sangeeta Devi. If this statement in the complaint petition is correct then perhaps the accused persons have been cheated of their money and valuable time.

Considering these aspects of the matter this application seeking quashing of the order of cognizance was admitted for final hearing.

Considering the fact that Ram Eqbal Singh (since deceased) purchased the property in question from Opposite Party No. 2, which was the same land which was sold by one of the brothers of Opposite Party No. 2 to a third person no offence under any one of the sections of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners can be made out.

The order taking cognizance dated 3.5.2008 is therefore without substance and, therefore, is quashed.

This application is allowed.