Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.50758 of 2008 ===================================================== Ram Nath Choudhary, son of Shri Ganesh Choudhary, resident of Mohalla-Abhiyanta Nagar, Bailey Road, Danapur, P.O. and P.S. Danapur, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ganga Rai, son of Late Ram Atwar Rai, resident of Mohalla- Sultanpur, Danapur, P.O. and P.S. Danapur, District-Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : M/s. S.B.K. Mangalam and Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. R.P.S. Singh, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Senior Advocate. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER --------------- 7 20-04-2012 The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 10.9.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.420(C) of 2007, whereby the court of Sri S.K. Upadhyay, Judicial Magistrate, First Cass, Danapur, Patna, summoned the accused-petitioner, on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] . 2. In brief, the case is that the opposite party no.2, Ganga Rai, filed the Complaint Case No.420(C) of 2007 in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50758 of 2008 (7) dt.20-04-2012 2 / 6 2 against the accused-petitioner alleging therein that the land measuring an are of one Katha fourteen Dhoor of Plot No.75 of Khata No.106 of Mauja-Jalalpur, Abhiyanta Nagar, Bailey Road, Danapur, P.S. Danapur, was in his name and the name of his wife. The accused-petitioner became ready to purchase one Katha seven Dhoor out of the aforesaid land. Accordingly, on 21.8.2004, the accused-petitioner came to his house with agreement to sale written on non judicial stamp of Rs.100/- and asked him and his wife to put their signatures and thumb impressions saying to take the cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, fixing the rate of the land as Rs.4,15,000/- per Katha with agreement to give Rs.5,81,000/- regarding one Katha eight dhoors of land. Accordingly, the opposite party no.2 received the cash of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance. On the same day, i.e., 21.8.2004, the accused-petitioner gave another typed paper of agreement to sale and asked him to put his signature and thumb impression on the paper on the pretext to use the same for taking the loan from his department, the Indian Oil Corporation. The opposite party no.2 and his wife on the assurance of the accused-petitioner put their signatures and thumb impressions on deed of another agreement to sale also. According to agreement to sale, the sale deed was to be executed till 21.12.2004 but due to non arrangement of the money by the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50758 of 2008 (7) dt.20-04-2012 3 / 6 3 petitioner, the sale deed was not executed. On reminder, the petitioner gave a cheque bearing no.132215 of Rs.1,55,000/- on 31.1.2005, which was encashed by the opposite party no.2. On the same day, the accused-petitioner gave another false cheque bearing no.132214 of Rs.1,65,000/- in the name of Shiv Kumari Devi, the wife of opposite party no.2, but the same was dishonoured by the IDBI bank due to insufficiency of fund in the account of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 7.2.2005, the accused- petitioner came to the house of the opposite party no.2 and made request to receive the cheque of Rs.60,000/- and to execute the sale deed. The opposite party no.2 and his wife in good faith executed the sale deed in favour of the accused-petitioner on 7.2.2005, reaching at the Registry Office at Patna. The cheque of Rs.60,000/-, as given by the accused-petitioner, was also dishonoured on account of distorted signature of the petitioner on the cheque and on receiving information of dishonour of the cheque, the petitioner gave cash of Rs.60,000/- to the opposite party no.2 but still Rs.1,45,000/- of the opposite party no.2 remained due against the accused-petitioner. In spite of repeated demand, the petitioner did not pay any heed to pay the balance amount, then the opposite party no.2 sent a legal notice, of which the petitioner replied through his Advocate denying about the dues Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50758 of 2008 (7) dt.20-04-2012 4 / 6 4 of Rs.1,45,000/-. As such, the accused-petitioner with dishonest intention grabbed Rs.1,45,000/- of the opposite party no.2. 3. After filing of the complaint petition by the opposite party no.2, the court of Sri S.K. Upadhyay, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danapur, Patna, on enquiry under Section 202 of the code of Criminal Procedure, summoned the accused- petitioner, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] vide order dated 10.9.2007, which is impugned in the present application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that after full and final payment of the consideration amount of the land, the sale deed was executed by the opposite party no.2 and his wife in favour of the petitioner, which would appear from Annexure-‘3’ to this application but only with a view to harass and to get more money from the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 has filed this complaint case against the petitioner. Moreover, if the allegation, as made in the complaint petition by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioner, is taken at its face value and is accepted to be true in its entirety, the dispute appears to be of civil in nature and continuation of the proceeding of the said case against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50758 of 2008 (7) dt.20-04-2012 5 / 6 5 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 made submission that agreement to sale, as prepared in between the petitioner

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.