CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No. 13885 OF 2004 ********** In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ********** 1. ASHA VERMA D/O LATE CHANDRA NAND PD. W/O SRI KRISHNA GOPAL VERMA. 2. ANAND GOPAL VERMA S/O LATE SHEO NANANDAN PD. VERMA. BOTH R/O VILLAGE JHILGANJ, ASTABAL LANE P.O. GAYA, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT- GAYA. 3. KUNDAN BIHARI LAL, S/O LATE YADUBANSHI SAHAI,R/O HAMIDGANJ, P.O. AND P.S. DALTENGANJ, DISTT. PALAMU (JHARKHAND) 4. SRI KRISHNA GOPAL VERMA S/O LATE SHEO NANDAN PD. VERMA, R/O JHILGANJ, ASTBAL LANE P.O. GAYA, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT. GAYA. 5. AMITABH KRISHNA S/O SRI KRISHNA GOPAL VERMA, R/O JHILGANJ ASTABAL LANE, P.O. GAYA, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT- GAYA. --------------------------(Appellants) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. UDHAW PD. YADAV, S/O LATE BAMJI PD. YADAV, R/O SHIV ASTHAN, THAWE, P.O. THAWE, DISTT. GOPALGANJ, AT PRESENT HOUSE NO. 36, PATELNAGAR, ROAD NO. 8, P.S. SHASTRINAGAR, DISTT. PATNA. -----------------------(Respondents) ************ For the State : Ramesh Chandra (APP) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceedings including the order dated 21.2.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Patna in complaint case no. 2510 (C)/2003 Tr. No. 284 of 2004 by which he has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. 2. By an order dated 28.11.2005 notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2 and further proceeding in the court below was stayed. Thereafter on 1.3.2006 the application was admitted for hearing. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner is absent, however, the counsel for opposite party no. 2 is present in court. 3. The case of the complainant is that the accused no. 1 and 3 met the complainant who was interested in buying land and offered for sale a certain piece of land within Danapur, police station. Before the deal was completed the accused no. 1 to 4 represented that they had purchased the land from one Chanarik Rai and there was no dispute over the same. Thereafter the said land was purchased through two registered sale deeds dated 17.5.2000 for a consideration amount of 3,66,000 (Three Lacs and Sixty Six Thousand) by the complainant. However, when he went upon the land to claim possession of the same, he was informed that in fact the mutation of Chanarik Rai, the original owner had stood cancelled. The complainant therefore alleged that the petitioners had cheated him and were therefore criminally liable. 4. Even though the petitioners have not appeared before this court but on going through the petition, I find that it is not disputed that the petitioners did not acquire the land through their ancestors and in fact had purchased the same through registered sale deeds from one Chanarik Rai in the year 1991, where as mutation was subsequently cancelled in the year 1996. In the mutation proceedings the petitioners were evidently not a party and to assume that they despite it knew that Chanarik Rai’s mutation was cancelled, is not possible. 5. On going through the complaint, I find that there is total absence of any mens rea on the part of the petitioners in the transaction of land in question so in my view no offence whatsoever would be made out against them. 6. In view of such, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including order dated 21.2.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Patna in complaint case no. 2510 (C)/2003 Tr. No. 284 of 2004 is hereby quashed. ( Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 14th July, 2010 NAFR/ Fahad.