IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14530 of 2002 UMESHKANT PANDEY Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4/ 19.8.2010 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appears for the O.P. No. 2 and submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he, in spite of having mortgaged the property described in paragraph 1 of the complaint petition, had sold the same concealing the fact of mortgaging the property to some financial institution. Learned senior counsel though fairly conceded the position of law that there is vast difference between sale and mortgage as regards transfer of property and its interest, as there could not be any bar in selling any property which was mortgaged to any financial institution or a private party. The very statement of Shri Sinha indicates that there could not be any offence for which the complaint petition was filed. In the result, summoning order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case no. 508 C of 2002 appears not sustainable in law and the same is hereby quashed. The petition stands allowed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)