IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25532 of 2000 MANJU DEVI & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR For the petitioners: Shri Aabhimanyu Sharma, Adv. For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. For Opp. Party No.2: none ----------- 4. 2.7.2010 Heard Shri Abhimanyu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Dashrath Mehta, learned A.P.P. for the State. None appears on behalf of the complainant, Opposite party no. 2. There was, admittedly, an agreement to sell a land to the complainant for a big consideration amount. That agreement was registered as appears from Anbexure 4 at page 44 of the present petition. As may appear from the very recital of the said written agreement the part payment of consideration was made to petitioner no.1 Manju Devi and the remaining part of the consideration was to be paid whereafter she was obliged to finally execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. There is no denial of the fact that the remaining part of the consideration money which was to be paid in terms of the written agreement was not paid to Manju Devi, the proprietor of the land, rather, it was paid to and received by co-accused Ramdeep Sharma alias Ramdeep Singh. There is no material as to how Ramdeep Singh could be related to or otherwise authorized by Manju Dekvi, the first party to the contract, to receive the part of the consideration money which was finally to 2 be paid to her by the complainant. The complaint petition was dismissed by holding that it could be giving rise to the civil liability for enforcing the part of the contract or seeking the relief properly before the civil court of competent jurisdiction after presenting a properly framed suit. However, the revisional court, i.e., 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya by its order dated 3.5.2000 passed in Cr. Revion No. 45 of 1999 held that some offence appeared made out and, as such, directed further inquiry to be made. The facts which I have narrated above give a clear picture as to how the agreement was scribed and there was the mode of payment set down by term of the agreement as regards the payment of the remaining part of the consideration money after accused Manju Devi had received Rs. 10,000/- as per the premium towards the payment of full consideration amount. There is no denial from the fact that payments were received at three different occasions by co-accused Ramdeep Sharma alias Ramdeep Singh . Admittedly, there was no authorization on behalf of Manju Devi for accused Ramdeep Singh to receive the payment of consideration amount which was to be paid after the first instalment of the consideration amount was paid to Manju Devi. In that view, it could be said that no offence was committed by Manju Devi. She does not have the criminal liability of receiving the amount through the accused who was not entitled to receive the same. As such, as regards the 3 prosecution of the petitioners who do not appear having any criminal liability in the matter is hereby set aside. As regards accused Ramdeep Singh, his prosecution is upheld as he appears receiving payment of different instalments of consideration amount as per receipt granted by him at the reverse page of Annexure-4. In the result, the prosecution of the petitioners is hereby quashed as regards complaint case No. 637 of 1997 initiated by the order dated21.7.2000. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)