IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14174 of 2001 SURYADEO PRASAD & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4/ 16.8.2010 None appears on behalf of the petitioners. I have heard Shri Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. On accepting the allegation and statements of facts made in the complaint, the court is of the view that no offence whatsoever could be said to be constituted by them. Admitted fact is that the parents of one of the accused persons had transferred some part of the property which was ancestral and joint. The mother and sister of Suryadeo Prasad again transferred the same property in favour of someone else as indicated in the complaint petition. It is true that the complainant had set up a story of partition inter se the members of the joint family but, the presumption of jointness of a Hindu family could not be disbelieved unless an appropriate decree passed by the Civil Court could be produced. A member of the joint family could very well transfer and sell his share in that property which might have been sold by another member of the Hindu family. Facts do not constitute any offence. The order of summoning dated 8.12.2000 passed in Lalganj P.S. Case no. 129 of 1998 arising out of Complaint Case no. C 1- 103 of 2000 is quashed. The petition stands allowed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)