IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11387 of 2001 UMESH DIXIT Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6/ 16.8.2010 None appears on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated calls. However, I have heard Shri Ashfaque Ahmad, APP for the state. The fact is admitted that the petitioner had obtained through a deed of gift an area of 4 kathas 1 dhoor out of plot no. 1338 under khata no. 73 and out of that, he appears having negotiated for transfer of an area of 3 kathas 10 dhoors to the complainant. Accordingly, the petitioner executed the sale deed dated 6.11.1999 and registered the same in the registry office. The allegation is that the complainant, subsequently, came to know that the petitioner had already executed a sale deed on 5.11.1999 in respect of 1 katha 5 dhoors land of same plot to another person. Thus, the complainant alleged that she was cheated by the petitioner. As may appear from the above noted fact that petitioner was not cheating the complainant because he was registering a sale deed of transfer in respect of a particular area of land one day after he had registered a similar document in favour of one Sudama Devi. If the whole of the area had been earlier sold, then it could have been a case constituting offences under sections 420 and 418 of the IPC. The petitioner had conveyed a property through a sale deed and 2 had received the consideration money. There could not be any element of cheating in the above transaction and thus, the prosecution launched against the petitioner through Complaint Case no. 133 of 2000 which could be pending before Shri Ravindra Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj or his successor in office is quashed. The petition stands allowed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)