IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.45950 of 2008 Ajay Kumar Sah Versus State Of Bihar & Anr ---------------------------------- Lawyer for Petitioner- Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh & Mr. Neeraj Kumar- Advs. Lawyer for State- Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh- A.P.P. --------------------------------- 04. 24.11.2011 This is an application for quashing of the cognizance order dated 01.12.2007 passed by the learned C.J.M., Saharsa in G.R. No.559 of 2007 arising out of Saharsa Sadar P. S. Case No.170 of 2007 under Sections 323, 406, 420, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Prosecution case, in brief, is that petitioner along with his wife came to the complainant proposed to transfer three (3) Katthas and eleven (11) dhoors of his land of Khata No.516 and Khesra No.3899 old and 316, 317 and 320 new and received Rs. Two lac and forty thousand (2,40,000/-) in advance, but is not ready to execute sale deed rather is further demanding/ asking Rs. One lac (1,00,000/-) while the complainant is ready to pay Rs. ten thousand (10,000/-). Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is about filing of a Civil Suit for Specific Performance of Contract to sell. 2 After perusal of the allegation itself, I find that there is no mention of any fraudulent or mala fide intention at the time of agreeing to sell or receiving the amount rather specifically is shown that sale could not be finalized due to non-payment of Rs. One lac (1,00,000/-) while complainant was ready to pay Rs. ten thousand (10,000/-) only. Nothing more beyond this much of the differences in between the parties for non-execution of the sale deed, in any case, may not be extended to draw the inference that at the beginning of the agreement, there was fraudulent and mala fide intention, which is ingredient for constituting any offence for cheating.Entrustment for the offence under Section 604 of the Cr. P. C. may also not be made applicable as allegedly money was given under an agreement to execute a sale deed. It is further submitted that allegation is lacking about causing any assault and no question arises about giving any threatening as petitioner was not alone rather with several others for that only, it is specifically mentioned that no action could be taken on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, this quashing application is hereby allowed and order dated 01.12.2007 for taking cognizance against this petitioner in connection with Saharsa Sadar P. S. 3 Case No.170 of 2007, G.R. No.559 of 2007 by C.J.M., Saharsa is hereby quashed. Vikash ( Mandhata Singh, J.)