Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10082 of 2009 ====================================================== Ramrup Narain, Son of Late Bodh Naresh Residents of Village – Chak Musallahpur, Police Station – Kadam Kuan, District – Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Parasadi Yadav Son of Late Pachoo Yadav, Resident of Village – Purani Bathan, Police Station – Fatehpur, District – Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 11-04-2012 Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel who was assisted by Sri Kamal Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hriday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant / opposite party no. 2 The sole petitioner invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 23.11.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 812 of 2007/Tr. No. 1264 of 2008 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gaya, has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Short fact of the case is that in the year 1997 an agreement to sale for certain land was entered in between the petitioner, complainant and one another. The petitioner was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10082 of 2009 (4) dt.11-04-2012 2 / 4 2 required to execute sale deed within a period of two years from the date of execution of the agreement to sale. It was alleged that even after expiry of more than two years no step was taken by the petitioner for executing the sale deed. The complainant got a legal notice issued to the petitioner for executing the sale deed and when no action was taken, the complainant, left with no option, approached the court below by filing the Complaint Case No. 812 of 2007. After conducting enquiry the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order of cognizance submits that the agreement to sale, copy of same has been brought on record as Annexure – ‘2’ to the petition, makes it clear that if the sale deed is not executed then the party would be at liberty to take legal action. Meaning thereby, that under the provisions of Specific Performance Act the complainant would have approached the court of civil jurisdiction, and for such action, the complainant was not required to file complaint petition nor the learned Magistrate was required to proceed with the same. He submits that contents of the complaint petition discloses no offence under [STATUTE] . On aforesaid ground it has been prayed to set aside the order of cognizance. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10082 of 2009 (4) dt.11-04-2012 3 / 4 3 Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted that right from the very beginning intention of the petitioner was to cheat the complainant and the petitioner persuaded the complainant to pay Rs. 16,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement to sale. It was argued that right from the very beginning intention of the petitioner was to cheat the complainant and due to that reason after receipt of entire consideration amount i.e. Rs. 16,000/- neither the petitioner executed sale deed nor he refunded the amount with interest. Be that as it may, fact remains that agreement was entered in between the parties long back in the year 1997 and as per the agreement period of two years was fixed for getting the sale deed executed. Meaning thereby, that if the petitioner was not acting upon on his undertaking given in the agreement, the complainant was having liberty to file a civil case under the provisions of Specific Performance Act. In view of the facts and circumstances as disclosed in the complaint petition which was obviously filed after more than ten years after the agreement, the court is of the opinion that allowing proceeding on such complaint petition will amount to allowing abuse of the process of court and with a view to prevent Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10082 of 2009 (4) dt.11-04-2012 4 / 4 4 abuse of the process of court it is desirable to interfere with the order of cognizance i.e. order dated 23.11.2007. Accordingly, same order of cognizance is set aside and the petition stands allowed. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.