IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46744 of 2007 RAM SWAROOP MAHTO, SON OF SAUBHI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHARNA, P.S. DHARHARA, DISTRICT MUNGER. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. AYODHYA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE SAUKHI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHARNA, P.S. DHARHARA, DISTRICT MUNGER. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :- None. For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 :- None. ********* 5 22.2.2011 This application has been filed against the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 527 of 2004 directed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger in Complaint Case No. 235C of 2004. The revision application has been filed against the order dated 15.12.2004 taking cognizance under Sections 467, 468, 420, 323 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The facts are that a complaint was filed in the Court below which was sent for registering a First Information Report under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts in the complaint petition and First Information Report are that Ayodhya Prasad Singh had two other brothers between whom there was a partition 2 in the year 1986. It is said that each of the brothers received 17 Dhurs of land in the said partition. It is alleged that the accused Ram Swaroop Mahto has sold 10 Dhurs of land on 2.9.2002 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- which falls in the share of the complainant, which amounts to a criminal offence namely cheating. It has also been mentioned in the complaint petition that a Title Suit is pending in the Court below between the parties with respect to the partition of the said lands. It would appear from the allegations made in the First Information Report that there was a civil dispute with respect to partition of land and during the pendency of the dispute one of the co-sharers has sold part of his land or perhaps more than his share that he would be entitled to receive in the partition suit. This Court finds that since the matter with respect to partition is already pending in the Civil Court, the allocation of share has to be decided in the Civil Court itself. In the event if one or the other party sells his share of the property 3 by any mode be it conditional sale or absolute sale, it is well settled that the purchasers of the said lands would be bound by the decree of the Civil Court. However, such a sale deed executed would not amount to a criminal offence as the matter with respect to title is yet to be decided between the two parties. Considering all the facts aforesaid, I do not find that the case is made out under Sections 467, 468, 420, 323 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the orders dated 24.7.2007 and 15.12.2004 are quashed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)