IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55701 of 2007 1) Smt. Sanjula Mishra @ Manjula Mishra, wife of Shri Dhirendra Mishra, Dhirendra Mishra, son of Late Palat Nath Mishra, both of Mohalla New Punaichak, Hanuman Nagar, PS Shastri Nagar, Patna – Petitioners. vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Jagdish Singh, son of Late Nand Kishore Singh, resident of Lochan Enclave, Flat No. 205, PS Kankarbagh, Patna – Opp. Parties.l 7 3.1.2011 This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 17.1.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Gardani Bagh P.S. Case No. 833 of 2004 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B/34 of the Penal Code against four persons mentioned in the complaint petition including these petitioners, which was later converted into an F.I.R The allegations made out is that the complainant- informant executed a sale deed in favour of the accused persons. It is said that 1 katha 7 dhurs of land was executed in favour of the two petitioners and 2 katha and 19 dhurs was executed in favour of Lakhan Devi and Ashwani Kunwar. The sale deed was executed in 1999 and thereafter the present case was instituted in 2004. It has been alleged in the FIR that accused 1 and 2 issued two Cheques in favour of the informant. One of the Cheque of the amount of Rs.65,000/- bounced and despite best efforts of the informant, he could not recover the money from the aforesaid two accused persons. It has specifically been stated at paragraph 14 of the complaint petition that accused 1 and 2 by cheating the informant 2 came in possession of the properties of the informant to the extent of 2 kathas 19 dhurs without paying the entire consideration amount. From a bare reading of the complaint-F.I.R. it would appear that the main allegations are against two persons, namely, Lakhan Devi and Ashwani Kunwar. So far as these petitioners are concerned, there is no direct allegation against them of cheating the informant or of committing forgery in any manner, in order to deprive the informant of his property. As far as these petitioners are concerned, I find prima facie that no case is made out against them. Counsel for the informant who has appeared in this case submits that charge sheet has been submitted and the fact whether these petitioners were also in connivance with other co- accused persons should be examined at the time of the trial. Considering the submission of counsel for the informant, this court comes to the conclusion that for a case to go to trial there must be a prima facie evidence which would constitute an offence alleged and some sort of allegation which would lead this court to conclude that the petitioners have connived with co-accused persons or entered into a conspiracy to deprive the informant of his property. In this case, no such allegation has been made out against the petitioners. Merely the fact that they too have purchased a piece of land from the informant would not by itself make them liable for any acts committed by any of the co-accused persons, specially taking into 3 account the allegations made related to issuance of a cheque, which purportedly bounced. Another factor which is in favour of the petitioners is that in fact no step was taken by the informant to lodge any case against the petitioners for a period of four years after the execution of the sale deed which is the bone of contention between the parties. This fact also, coupled with the aforesaid facts, support the contention that no offence is made out against the petitioners in the FIR. I accordingly quash the impugned order so far it relates to these petitioners. This application is allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)