Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13012 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Narayan Prasad Yadav son of late Mahabir Prasad Yadav, resident of Gautam Nagar, Ward No. 15, Saharsa, P.S. and District-Saharsa. 2. Budhdeo Bhagat, son of late Jahuri Bhagat, resident of Mohalla- Gang Jala, P.S. and District-Saharsa. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Jai Ballav Thakur, son of late Baleshwar Thakur, resident of Village-Bihra, P.S.-Bihra, District-Saharsa. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Adv. Mr. Bhim Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Pandey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sanjay KUmar Tiwary, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 3 16-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional P.P. for the State. 2. In spite of having personal service of summon, opposite party no. 2 failed to appear. 3. Earlier Saharsa P.S. Case No. 195 of 2003 was registered on the written report of opposite party no. 2, Jai Ballav Thakur, wherein protest petition was filed and after submission of final form, accordingly, the aforesaid protest petition was treated as complaint petition and was numbered as Complaint Petition No. 49-C of 2008. The gist of the allegation happens to be that the accused Narayan Prasad Yadav (petitioner no. 1) had purchased 4 dhurs of land from Khesra No. 1208 from Ghuran Das and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13012 of 2010 (3) dt.16-07-2012 2/4 illegally advanced claimed over the land belonging to complainant. 4. Contentions on behalf of petitioners are that from the narration of the complaint petition whatever boundary has been shown, that gives presence of seller at southern boundary. Therefore, the sale deed executed by son of Sahdev Das, namely, Ghuran Das is a genuine document and the only controversy remains over for location of the land that means to say southern side or northern side. In the aforesaid background, none of the sections whereunder cognizance has been taken happens to be applicable. 5. At the other hand, the learned Additional P.P. fairly concedes that from own narration of the complaint petition, the remaining area of land of vendor still exists, out of which 4 dhurs were executed in favour of petitioner no. 1, Narayan Prasad Yadav and, therefore, the sections that means to say 420 and 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not at all applicable. 6. From the narration of the complaint petition, it is evident that the opposite party no. 2/complainant’s father had purchased 3 Kathas of land from Sahdeo Das, vide sale deed dated 31.12.1975, having boundary north, Lootan Das and Kankeer Das, southern-Neej, east Niyamat Miyan and west Rameshwar Jha. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13012 of 2010 (3) dt.16-07-2012 3/4 Presence of vendor at the southern boundary is itself admitted by the complainant. The present sale deed happens to be the subsequent sale deed of the year 22.10.2003 that means to say as per Section 48 of the Transfer of Property of Act, first of all the earlier created document has to be satisfied and in likewise manner the successive created document is to be taken into consideration. So, the case of the complainant cannot be found to be jeopardize in the background of Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, because of the fact that first of all his document has to be satisfied. The subsequent document created by Ghuran Das, which happens to be the germane of instant litigation, cannot be identified as a forged fabricated document because of presence of Ghuran Das as well as Sahdev Das on account of having his remaining land still exist at the boundary. Therefore, the document in question cannot be categorized as forged and fabricated document and consequent thereupon did not attract application of [STATUTE] . Not only this, there was no negotiation in between complainant and the accused persons nor there was any dishonest or fraudulent intention to deceive the complainant because of the fact that negotiation was in between Ghuran Das with Narayan Prasad Yadav where in complainant has got no involvement. Further-more from the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13012 of 2010 (3) dt.16-07-2012 4/4 complaint petition it is evident that save and except name of petitioner no. 2 Budhdeo Bhagat no allegation is attributed against him. 7. In the aforesaid background, the order impugned summoning the petitioners to face trial for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] happens to be non-maintainable in the eye of law and consequent thereupon, the same is set aside to the extent of the status of the petitioners, Narayan Prasad Yadav and Budhdeo Bhagat only. 8. Thus, this petition is allowed. Safik/- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, 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.