IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.27 of 1998 IN SLA 128/96 -------------------- Against the order of acquittal passed in Complaint case no.C/1163/93 by Shri Santosh Kumar, J.M. Ist class, Hajipur. =========================================================== Suresh Prasad Singh son of late Ram Prasad Singh resident of mohalla Sahajadpur Andar Kila, P.S. Hajipur Town, District Vaishali .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1.State Of Bihar 2.Harihar Singh son of late Bihari Singh 3.Manoj Kumar Singh 4.Mukesh Kumar Singh both son s of Thakur Hari Prasad Singh, 5.Bindeshwar Singh, son of Ram Sewak Singh. 6.Ashok Kumar Singh son of name not known.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Advocate. For the Respondent/s 2 to 6 : Mr. C.M. Charasia, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT The 30th September, 2011. (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD) This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal recorded by Shri Santosh Kumar , Judicial Magistrate , Ist class, Hajipur in complaint case No. C/1163/93 by which he has acquitted the accused persons from the charge of offence under section 420 and 210 B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case as alleged is that complainant Suresh Singh and accused Harihar Singh are cousin brother and descendants of common ancestors. Further case of the complainant is that there was a partition and parties were in possession of their respective share allotted to them. It is alleged that Harihar Singh in conspiracy executed a sale deed with regard to the land of the complainant to the accused no. 2 to 5 and as such has committed cheating. On the complaint Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.27 of 1998 dt.30-09-2011 2 cognizance was taken and during trial the witnesses were examined. The witnesses supported the prosecution case. The trial court taking into consideration the evidence that a partition suit is going on between the parties held that the complainant has not been able to establish that the plot no. 535 which was the subject matter was exclusively in the share of complainant which has been sold under a criminal conspiracy .Further the court has held that the matter concerned is not in dispute and hence the charges have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the appellant however, assailed the order of acquittal stating that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. However, having regard to the allegation and the charge for the offence under section 420 I.P.C, is concerned, the land is ancestral land and there is no partition and the accused no.1 has sold land claiming to be in his share. If the land is common in share that may be a question of civil suit whether he has got the right or not. However, so far cheating is concerned there is neither any allegation or evidence of inducement to the complainant nor there is any evidence that the complainant delivered any money in view of the inducement and unless the inducement and money give in pursuance of the inducement is establish offence section 420 I.P.C cannot be made out. I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the order of acquittal granted by the lower court and the lower court has passed the order on sound reasoning. Hence I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. (Gopal Prasad, J) Patna High Court, The 30th September 2011 Rahman/ (N.A.F.R) Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.27 of 1998 dt.30-09-2011 3