CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.42930 OF 2005 ********** In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ********** AJAY KUMAR S/O NARESH CHANDRA SHUKLA --------------------------(Appellant) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. LALL BABU VIDYARTHI S/O LATE MAHABIR PANDIT -----------------------(Respondents) ************ For the Petitioner : Mukteshwar Pd. Singh For the State : Murli Dhar Adv.APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including order dated 10.01.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Patna in connection with Trial No. 1918 of 2003 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1471 (c) of 2003 by which he has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 403 and 418 of I.P.C. 2. On 30.11.2006 notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2 and further proceedings in the court below was stayed. Despite the opposite party no. 2 appearing through a duly executed vakalatnama he has chosen not to be present before the court today to advance his arguments. 3. The case of the complainant is that on 11.10.1990 the accused no. 4 on behalf of the accused no. 1 Vitta Vibhag Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited. Patna registered a sale deed in favour of the wife of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant is said to have paid the consideration money for the same to the accused no. 2 and 3 (petitioner) despite which the possession of the land was not delivered to the wife of the complainant. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was elected secretary of the Samiti on 31.10.1993 and admittedly the sale deed was registered on 11.10.1990, therefore, the petitioner could not be held liable for inaction of the earlier encumbrance of the Samiti. 5. The further submission is that the allegation that the consideration amount was given to the petitioner and accused no. 2 does not stands to reasons since if the sale deed was executed on 11.10.1990 obviously the consideration amount would have been paid prior to the same and not after. And admittedly when the petitioner became a secretary only on 31.10.1993 there was no question of the petitioner receiving the amount in consideration of the same. As the opposite party no. 2 has not appeared today. I have no option but to accept the contention of the petitioner and therefore I am inclined to quash the entire proceeding including order dated 10.01.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Patna in connection with Trial No. 1918 of 2003 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1471 (c) of 2003 by which he has taken cognizance 6. Application stands allowed. ( Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 22th July, 2010 NAFR/ Fahad.