IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5251 of 2007 RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioner : M/S Yogesh Chandra Verma,Sr.Advocate and Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate For the State :Md. Mushtaque Alam, A.P.P For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, Advocate. ---------- O R D E R The petitioner through this application seeks quashing of order dated 14.12.2006 passed by Sri D.S. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya in Complaint Case no.667 of 2006 , whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections-420,323 and 504 I.P.C. The complainant, one Vinod Singh filed the aforesaid complaint on 10.5.2006 against the petitioner and others , inter alia, stating therein that the petitioner had executed a deed of Bai Beyana in favour of the complainant and one Bajrangi Singh on 20.5.2005 for a certain piece of land measuring a total area of 1.46 decimals situated in Katari Hill Road , Gaya ,after receiving an amount of Rs.2 Lacs through Bank Draft. It is further stated that after five days accused Baijnath Sahai and Ramesh Kumar Gupta came to the complainant and asked him to pay one lac rupees in cash and when the complainant demanded a copy of the deed, the aforesaid two accused who happened to be the mediators asked the petitioner to put his signature on some blank stamp papers and the complainant in good - 2 - faith affixed his signature on the papers and also handed over Rs.1 Lac. It is alleged that in the next morning the two accused again came and told the complainant that the petitioner was calling him and has asked to give Rs. 2 lacs more in cash and receive the Bai Bayana .The complainant is said to have handed over the amount of Rupees two lacs to the petitioner herein and in lieu thereof the deed in question was handed over to him. It is said that on receipt of the same the complainant was surprised to see that the deed was also executed in favour of Bajrangi Singh and when he objected to the same, he was assured by all the accused persons that Bajrangi Singh will never create any disturbance in future. It is alleged that Banjrangi Singh was also one of the mediators and he managed to get his name added in the deed with an ulterior motive. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the case was a false one filed only with a view to cover his own misdeed so that he may succumb to the illegal demand and designs of the complainant. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his father Late Murlidhar Gupta purchased 8 acres and 7 ½ decimals of land including the land in question in the year 1957 through registered sale deed and had been coming in peaceful possession over the same. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner died leaving behind two sons and two daughters. It is also stated that the two sisters of the petitioner, namely, Rajni Devi and Rina Devi, who had been in peaceful joint possession over the lands in question and the petitioner - 3 - along with Rajni Devi filed Title Suit no.47 of 2004 in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Giridih, in which the brother Rajendra Kumar Gupta and sister Rina were made defendants. It is further submitted that thereafter on 24.4.2004 the petitioner on behalf of himself as well as on behalf of his sister Rajni Devi filed an injunction petition for an order injuncting all the share-holders from selling out the land in question, but the same was dismissed and by virtue thereof the petitioner as also his two sisters (vendors in the instant case) became entitled to sell the land of their respective shares situated at Katari Hill Road, Gaya. It has further been submitted that the land of deed is not a disputed property .His title to the land is in no way in dispute and the petitioner and his sisters had filed a partition suit with regard to the total lands inherited by them from their late father and the pendency of the partition suit does not bar the petitioner or his two sisters who are co-sharers to sell out the land of their respective shares. They have legal title of the land in question. Other submissions have also been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner , all of which including what has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner in the foregoing paragraphs amount to look into facts , figures and documents which this Court is not competent to do in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. These are the matters which can only be looked into at the stage of framing of charge or in course of trial. - 4 - Accordingly, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 6th August,2008 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.