IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.1166 of 2009 BIJENDRA KUMAR ROHATGI @ LALA BABU son of late Babu Nand Kumar Rohatgi, resident of Kanu Lal Road, Mithapur, P.S. Jakkanpur, Town & District- Patna. ...Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. Uma Kant Sharan, son of late Ram Priya Sharan, resident of flat no.2, Rohatgi Bhawan, Kanu Lal Road, Mithapur, P.S. Jakkanpur, Town & District- Patna …Opposite parties ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. L. N. Das & Mr. Subnoteswar De, Advocates For the OP No.2 : Mr. Surendra Pd. Singh, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. R. N. Jha, APP ------------ 3/ 28.07.2010 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.09.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna, in Complaint case no.2006© of 2008, by which he has taken cognizance under section 418 Indian Penal Code. On 19.3.2010, the opposite party no. 2 was noticed who has appeared through duly executed vakalatnama and both the parties are present before this court today. The case of the complainant is that he learnt that a flat was being constructed on the plot of land owned by the petitioner and, therefore, came in contact with the Developer (Accused No.1). The Builder agreed to sell the flat to the complainant and they entered into the agreement on 29.9.2000 for allotment of flat no.2 with parking space no. II. According to the map, the proportionate share of the land allotted the complainant’s wife was 518.45 sq. ft. the total value of the proportionate land was shown at Rs.86,500/-. Unfortunately, after the - 2 - complainant moved into the flat, he found that another floor was being constructed on the same area even though he had been given to understand that the building will contain only two floors and not three floors. The complainant thereafter filed this complaint alleging therein that the petitioner, who happens to he the land owner was in connivance with the builder in pursuance to which third floor of which map had also not been approved by the PRDA, was constructed. In my view, in the entire complaint there is no allegation that the petitioner represented to the complainant on any aspect of the flat which was subsequently sold to the opposite party no.2 by the co- accused and, therefore, under the circumstances, the petitioner had caused no loss to him. Moreover, it is an admitted position that the complainant had entered into agreement with the builder and the petitioner was nowhere in the picture. In view of such, this application is allowed and the order dated 10.9.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna, in Complaint Case No.2006 © of 2008, in so far as it relates to the petitioner only, is hereby quashed. Application stands allowed. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)