IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3546 of 2007 PANKAJ KUMAR JHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 7 3.7.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.12.2005 by which cognizance has been taken under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner Pankaj Kumar Jha. A complaint petition was filed alleging therein that Maharaj Darbhanga had settled certain orchard lands in favour of the complainant for which he has paid Rs. 31,300/- to Raj Kumar Shubheshwar Singh and thereafter had paid Rs. 54,000/- on 24.4.2005 and this petitioner who is the Manager of Maharaj Darbhanga has prepared the Patta settling the orchard in favour of the petitioner. The complainant opposite party sent a legal notice to the petitioner which is annexure-3 to the petition and the same is referred to in the complaint petition itself. In the legal notice it is stated “that you in the capacity of trust Superintendent-cum-Land Supervisor, Rajnagar Religious Trust, Rajnagar sold the Mango fruits on 24.4.2005 to my client”. The plot nos. have also been mentioned in the said legal notice. It has been alleged on behalf of opposite party that when he went to take possession of the said orchard, he came to know that the Circle Officer had settled the lands described in legal notice at annexure-3 which had vested in the State of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party in order to substantiate this part of his submission and allegation, has also produced annexure-B series which is settlement made by the Circle Officer with respect to plot no. 1492 and plot nos. 903, 906 in favour of another person. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that he is admittedly only the Supervisor and Manager of the Religious Trust on behalf of Raj Kumar Shubheshwar Singh and the money has not been paid to him nor has he with any manner benefited out of the said transaction. It is also submitted that cognizance has not been taken against Raj Kumar Subheshwar Singh in this Case. It is further submitted that the case is of civil nature and as far as the petitioner is concerned, no offence under Section 420 can be made out against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the gazette notification under Section 10 of the Land Ceiling Act by which the plots mentioned in the legal notice have been exempted from the proceeding under the Ceiling Act. On the basis of this document it is submitted that the Circle Officer had wrongly settled the orchard of plot no. 903 and 906 as these plots had vested with the State of Bihar. Learned counsel submits that ingredients of the offence are not made out on the facts in this case. The petitioner was only a Manager and had executed the Patta in favour of opposite party and as far as delivery of the money is concerned it was not with intention to cheat or dishonestly deceive, the complainant as the petitioner had full knowledge that the lands in question had not been vested with the State of Bihar. Before parting with the order, I may mention here that the petitioner in this case accepts this fact that he had executed a Patta in favour of opposite party on the instructions of Ex-Maharaj of Darbhanga. In the facts aforesaid I find that the facts alleged do not constitute an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party submits that he has been put to loss because of the action of the Circle Officer or the alleged action of Maharaj of Darbhanga. It is always open for the opposite party to file a suit for recovery of the money that he had paid to Maharaj Darbhanga. Learned counsel submits that the complaint was filed on 30.7.2005 and the transaction took place on 24.4.2005 and as such the money suit may be time barred, but the court can certainly take into consideration the intervening facts which led to the delay. It will be open to the opposite party to approach the Circle Officer and it is expected that the petitioner would help him to demonstrate before the Circle Officer and the lands in question are not vested in the State of Bihar. With the aforesaid observations this application is allowed and the order taking cognizance, dated 26.12.2006 in complaint case no. C-R.938 of 2005 is hereby quashed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)