IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.18728 of 2008 Ashutosh Kumar, son of Ram Krishna Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Mojahidpur, P.S. Mojahidpur, District-Bhagalpur. ………………………………………………………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Ashok Mandal, son of Late Lal Dhari Mandal, resident of village-Sultanpur Bhitti, P.S. Sabour, District- Bhagalpur. …………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: M/s. Subodh Prasad and Mukesh Kr. Jha, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : M/s. Binod Kumar Singh and Abhay Kumar, Advocates. ----------------------------- 3. 30.9.2011. Heard the parties. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 24.4.2006 passed in Complaint Case No.1790 of 2005 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, summoning the accused persons including the petitioner, named in the complaint petition, on inquiry, finding prima facie case under Sections 417, 465 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. According to the complaint petition, numbered as 2 Complaint Case No.1790 of 2005, filed by the complainant- opposite party no.2, Ashok Mandal, the case is that his father, Laldhari Singh, was the old person and during his life time, he proposed to sell the land appertaining to Khata No.57, Khesra No.280 to the accused no.1, Jai Kumar Das, on consideration of Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, on 13.9.2004, the complainant- opposite party no.2, Ashok Mandal alongwith his brother, Anil Mandal and father, Laldhari Singh, went to Bhagalpur Civil Courts and contacted the petitioner, Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate, where he handed over them the hand written draft of Kewala of the aforesaid land which he had read before his brother and father in which the execution of the sale deed with regard to 2 ½ decimal of the land appertaining to Khata No.57, Khesara No.280 and consideration money Rs.40,000/- were mentioned and at that time, his villagers-Niranjan Das and Ashok Das and other witnesses named in the complaint petition were present. Thereafter, the petitioner, called the typist, Yoganand Jha and gave the said draft to him for typing on the Stamp Paper and when the typist came to the table of the petitioner after typing the Kewala on the Stamp Paper , the accused-petitioner obtained the signatures on the paper and after pasting their photographs filed the same in the Registry 3 Office for the registration. At the time of registration the contents of the Kewala was not read and the query before the Registrar was replied by the petitioner himself. On 16.8.2005 after the death of his father, the accused no.1, Jai Kumar Das, objected the complainant-opposite party no.2 from cultivating the land of 98 decimals appertaining to Khata No.126, Khesra No.267 by saying that the same land has been sold to him. Thereafter, the complainant-opposite party no.2 got the certified copy of the registered paper and found that the accused-petitioner under conspiracy with the accused no.1, Jai Kumar Das got entered their name on the sale deed. After filing of the aforesaid complaint petition by the complainant-opposite party no.2, on enquiry, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, summoned the accused persons named in the complaint petition including the petitioner finding prima facie case against them under Sections 417, 465 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code through the impugned order dated 24.4.2006. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Advocate, who had only drafted the sale deed and read over the contents of the same to the complainant-opposite party no.2 and he has falsely been 4 implicated in this case. It has also been submitted that the summoning order in respect of the co-accused, Jai Kumar Das, has already been quashed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.5.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. No.26808 of 2006. From perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the father of complainant-opposite party no.2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of the co-accused, Jai Kumar Das, with regard to two plots bearing Plot No.280 having an area of 2.5 decimals and Plot No.267 having an area of 98 decimals. The sale deed, which is Annexure-‘4’ to the application goes to show that the complainant-opposite party no.2 and his brother, Anil Mandal, had put their signatures as witnesses on every page of the sale deed including the page description of land in the sale deed. Thus, it appears that the allegation against the petitioner is vexatious, malicious and the complaint case has been filed with oblique motive. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution of the petitioner on such allegation is out and out misuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.4.2006 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in Complaint Case No.1790 of 2005 with respect to the petitioner is hereby 5 quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)