IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28547 of 2008 RAJENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE BAIJNATH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF BHITRI BEGUM PUR, PATNA CITY, POLICE STATION CHOWK, DISTRICT PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF SHRI BRAHAMDEO PRASAD, RESIDENT OF HOSPITAL RAD MASAURHI, POLICE STATION MASAURHI, DISTRICT PATNA ********** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JITENDRA KR. SINGH NO. 1, A.P.P. ********** 2 21/06/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2006 passed in Masaurhi Police Station Case No. 68 of 2006 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Masaurhi has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 417, 406, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The informant’s wife is said to have entered into an agreement with Mani Lal Sah for purchase of 18 dhurs of land appertaining to plot no. 1958, khata no. 1. In view of the said agreement, an advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the informant. When the date of execution of sale deed was eminent, it is alleged that Mani Lal Sah refused to execute the sale deed. It is further alleged that on 23.06.2006 at about 7 AM, Mani Lal Sah along with his nephew i.e. this petitioner and his 2 son Mithilesh Kumar came to the house of the informant and demanded further sum of Rs. 50,000/- . It is apparent that the petitioner does not have title over the said land and he was also not the executant of the sale deed and as such, he could not be held responsible for violating any agreement. In the circumstances, this Court finds that no case is made out under Sections 420, 417, 406 & 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code as far as this petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 17.08.2006 is quashed as far as this petitioner is concerned. This application is thus allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )