CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.42948 OF 2005 ********** In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ********** AJAY KUMAR S/O NARESH CHANDRA SHUKLA, SECRTETARY, BITTA BIBHAG KARAMCHARI SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SAMITI LIMITED. --------------------------(Appellant) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SURPATI NARAYAN SINGH S/O DEV LAL SINGH -----------------------(Respondents) ************ For the Petitioner : Rajev Ranjan Sinha Adv. For the State : Amanendra Prasad App. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 27.8.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Patna in connection with Trial No. 1443 of 2002 arising out of Complaint Case No. 914 (c) of 2002 by which he has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. 2. On 1.3.2006 the opposite party no. 2 was noticed and further proceedings in the court below was stayed. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 appeared but is not present in court today and only counsel for the petitioner is present to advance his arguments. 3. The complainant has alleged that the petitioner was a member of Vitta Vibhag Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited. Patna and had deposited a sum of Rs. 39,000 for allotment of a plot measuring 2,400 Square feet on 6.6.1991 and was given an allotment letter with regard to the same. The allotment letter contained the details of the land which was Survey Plot no. 90, Thana no. 53, Tauzi no. 317, Khata no. 113 Samiti Plot no. B/364, area 2,400 sq.ft. situated Sabajpura. Thereafter, on 26.7.1994 the petitioner in the capacity of the secretary is said to have been gone to the registry office, Danapur and registered a land measuring 2400 sq.ft. but the details of the land were different from the one given in the allotment letter. The complainant is said to have raised the objection with regard to the same but same was registered despite his objection. Later on the complainant learnt that in fact the said land had already been registered to eight different persons between the year 1989 to 1.2.1991. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been elected secretary of the samiti on 31.10.1993 and therefore admittedly the money had not been entrusted to the petitioner by the complainant. The further submission is that the complainant has failed to bring on record the allotment letter which was given to him by the previous secretary in absence of which the entire allegation that in fact the petitioner had registered a different piece of land in favour of the complainant has no documentary basis. Further the allegation that the land had previously been settled with other persons also does not show the complicity of the petitioner since admittedly the same had been done between 21.6.1989 to 1.2.1991 i.e. before the petitioner became secretary of the samiti. Sine no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, the contention of the petitioner goes uncontested. 5. In view of the fact that the complainant has failed to bring the allotment letter on record which alone would have clinched the issue as to whether the complainant had been cheated by the petitioner, I have no option but to allow the application. 6. In view of such, this application is allowed and the order dated 27.8.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Patna in connection with trial no. 1443 of 2002 arising out of complaint case no. 914 (c) of 2002 by which he has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. is hereby quashed. 7. Application stands allowed. ( Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 22th July, 2010 NAFR/ Fahad.