IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.512 of 2008 Ramnath Sharma @ R.N.Sharma, son of late Shyam Bihari Sharma, resident of Mohalla- IAS Colony, P.S.-Danapur, District- Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Ramanand Singh, son of late Sita Ram Singh. 3. Anu Kumar Singh, son of Ramanand Singh. 4. Vinay Kumar Singh, son of Ramanand Singh. 5. Abhimanyu Kumar Singh, son of Ramanand Singh (All 2 to 5 are residents of village- Rukunpura, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna) ----------- 8. 05.09.2011 The complainant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 5.03.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Complaint Case No.1076 C/2006 by which the accused- opposite party nos. 2 to 5 have been discharged for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120 B of the I.P.C. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant-petitioner purchased 12 Kathas 6 Dhurs and 8 Dhurki of land bearing Khata No.185, Plot No.240 under Danapur Thana by two sale-deeds executed by the accused in favour of his two sons and came in possession. Their names were mutated and they have been paying the rent. At the time of sale, the land in question was subject of the partition suit pending in the court of Sub-Judge-III, 2 Danapur and the accused Ramanand Singh and Ram Chandra Singh, two brothers had given the understanding to the complainant that both the brothers have equal share in the land and half of the land was sold to the complainant after receiving the consideration money. Later on, the complainant came to know that the accused entered into a collusive, fraudulent and illegal compromise dated 3.07.2006 before the Lok Adalat in Partition Suit No.385/1988 and the entire plot no.240 was allotted to the share of the Ram Chandra Singh and his two sons with a view to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently. Thereafter, knowing the act of fraud, deception and cheating, the petitioner filed Complaint Case No.1076 C/06 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, who transferred the case to the court of Judicial Magistrate under Section 192 Cr.P.C. The cognizance has been taken on 22.01.2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120 B of the I.P.C. and summons were issued against the accused in the complaint case (Annexure-1). The petitioner has filed Title Suit No.15/07 against the aforesaid accused for 3 declaration that the decree passed by Lok Adalat in Danapur in Title Suit No.585/88 is collusive and fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiff (petitioner) and for other reliefs, which is pending in the court of Sub-Judge I, Danapur. The opposite party no.4 filed a petition for anticipatory bail vide A.B.P.No.2094/07 before the learned Sessions Judge, Patna wherein dishonestly and fraudulently made a proposal to refund the consideration money with 5% interest. No notice was given to the petitioner and order was passed to refund the consideration money with 5% interest to the petitioner. The petitioner filed Cr. Misc. No.24842/07 against the part of the order passed in A.B.P.No.2094/07 confining his grievance only to the part of the order by which direction had been given to refund the consideration money to the petitioner with 5% interest. This Misc. Case was disposed vide order dated 10.09.2007 with a direction that the petitioner is free to receive or not to receive the said amount and the order was not binding upon him (Annexure-2). In course of evidence, the petitioner was examined as P.W.I and he supported his case fully besides certified 4 copy of the sale deed executed in favour of the son of the petitioner alongwith the certified copy of the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No.585/1988 was filed in the complaint case on 22.12.2006 and the list of documents filed in that case has been filed as Annexure-3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there has been sufficient evidence for framing of charge against the accused. In this case, in view of the statement of the petitioner and the documents showing that the accused have fraudulently entered into compromise before the Lok Adalat by allotting the land already sold in favour of sons of the petitioner, to the share of Ramchandra Singh and his sons i.e. brother and nephews of opposite party no.2, as a result of which, the petitioner has been cheated and a criminal breach of trust has been committed against him and the petitioner filed a petition dated 15.01.2008 to frame charge and allow the petitioner to adduce further evidence thereafter (Annexure-4). But the learned Magistrate has passed a long judgment discharging the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 based upon extraneous matters and improper consideration in violation of established norms and 5 principles of law governing the field of charge and discharge. He has further submitted that the petitioner has filed documentary evidence in support of his plea vide Annexure-3, but erroneously, the learned Magistrate has stated in the impugned order that there is no documentary evidence on the record relating to the land in question or any other document showing that the accused have committed any forgery or conspiracy. Since, there is sufficient material on record to show that the accused has committed offence. The learned Magistrate could not have discharged the accused; rather, charges should have been framed against them. He has further submitted that the learned Magistrate has also discharged the accused on the ground that the offence is of civil nature. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that at the time of executing of sale deed, it has been made clear to the complainant that a partition suit is going on between the accused and the brother and even after knowing this fact the complainant petitioner has purchased the land. As such, there is no commission of any forgery on behalf of the accused. The case is also of civil nature. 6 After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate has not passed the impugned order on the ground that it is a civil matter and no offence is made out against the accused rather it appears that the accused have been discharged from the offence as there is no material on record to show that they have committed any offence. It appears that the learned Magistrate has held that there is no material on record to frame charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. The learned Magistrate has further held that there is no documentary evidence in support of the contention of the complainant. It further appears that this fact is not correct. From perusal of Annexure-3, it appears that four documents have been filed by the petitioner in support of his complaint case. It appears that the complainant has also filed certified copy of the compromise petition and the order dated 26.08.06 passed in Title Suit No.585/88. Therefore, it appears that the learned Magistrate has not considered the material on record as to whether ground for presuming that the accused have committed any 7 offence or not. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients. The offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges against the accused in support of commission of that offence. A reference may be made to a decision in the case of Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Ors. reported in AIR 1980 SC 52. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate for passing an order in accordance with law. In the result, this revision application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)