IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.8 of 2011 SUBHASH KUMAR son of late Ramchandra Prasad, resident of Mohallah Chirayatard, Postal Park Road No.4, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna … … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Vakil Rai son of late Lakhi Rai 3. Mantu Kumar alias Mantu Rai son of Vakil Rai, both residents of Ilahibagh, P.S.Gaurchak(Phulwarisarif) at present Gopalpur, District Patna … … Opp. Parties For the petitioner: Shri Jitendra Kumar Roy-1 ----------- 2. 1.3.2011 After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who is the complainant of Complaint case No. 298 ( C ) of 2004 on admission of the present petition for Special Leave to Appeal which seeks intervention by this Court through its appellant power for setting aside the order of acquittal dated 2.12.2010 passed by Ms. Kumari Vijaya, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna, in Trial No. 1065 of 2010 (Complaint Case No. 298(C ) of 2004). What appears admitted from the facts is that the appellant had a registered agreement to sell the property stipulating sale and registration of the deed within a year of the agreement entered into between him and the accused persons and that not being 2 done, as per the allegation, the complainant was sending reminders and pressing the accused persons to register the deed. Reminders were also given on a couple of dates, like, 2.8.2003 and 20.9.2003 and in spite of having received the money, the accused persons were not ready or inclined to register the transfer deed and, as such, lastly, the complainant went with the witnesses to the house of the accused persons on 4.2.2004 to request the accused persons, i.e., respondents 2 and 3 herein, to execute the sale deed, whereupon they assaulted and abused the complainant. The learned Judicial Magistrate has written in her order that on account of the registered agreement to sell after having received the consideration money in part as premium for registering the agreement to sell there was no element of cheating and also there was no element of misappropriation. So far other offences are concerned, in view of the contrary evidence of the witnesses, the allegation stated in the complaint petition could not be said to be proved. 3 This Court finds that the reason assigned by the learned Magistrate for coming to the conclusion and specially one regarding the constitution of offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C., was proper and justified and was supportable on account of the law that the registered agreement to sell a property could not be giving rise to any criminal liability rather the same could be a contract which could be enforced by bringing a properly framed suit before a competent civil court. In that view of the matter, this Special Leave to Appeal appears of no merit and no relief against the judgment passed by the lower court on 2.12.2010 could be granted. This S.L.A. is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)