CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.42963 OF 2005 ********** In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ********** AJAY KUMAR S/O NARESH CHANDRA SHUKLA --------------------------(Appellant) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. GEETA DEVI W/O SURPATI NARAYAN SINGH -----------------------(Respondents) ************ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukteshwar Pd.Singh For the State : Pancha Nand Pandit App. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceedings including the order dated 27.8.2002 by which the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Patna has taken the cognizance in Trial No. 1442 of 2002 arising out of Complaint Case No. 913 (c) of 2002 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 467, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. 2. On 27.2.2006 notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2 and further proceedings were stayed. After receipt of notices the opposite party no. 2 appeared through a duly executed vakalatnama but has chosen not to be present in court today. 3. The case of the complainant is that she had become a member of the Bitta Bibhag Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. and thereafter deposited a sum of Rs. 39,600 on 6.8.1991 and she was granted a allotment letter for a plot measuring 2400 Sq.feet, details of which were Survey plot no. 83, Thana no. 53, Tauzi no. 317, Khata no. 114 and Survey Plot no. 83 and Samiti Plot no. B/365. However, on 26.7.1994 the petitioner in the capacity of the secretary of the Samiti is said to have got certain piece of land registered in the name of the complainant bearing different details of the land. It was later learnt by the complainant that in fact the Samiti had previously allotted the same piece of land to various other persons. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in absence of the allotment letter the very basis of the complaint is demolished since the entire complaint is based on the allegations that the allotment letter contained different details of land from the sale-deed. The further submission is that the allegations that the said land had earlier been registered in the names of others will also not make the petitioner liable for prosecution since the said had been settled much earlier to the petitioner having been elected as a secretary on 1.11.1993. Since the opposite party no. 2 has chosen not to appear before this court. I am inclined to accept the argument of the petitioner. 5. In view of such, this application is allowed and the order dated 27.8.2002 by which the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Patna has taken the cognizance in Trial No. 1442 of 2002 arising out of Complaint Case No. 913 (c) of 2002 is hereby quashed. ( Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 22th July, 2010 NAFR/ Fahad.