1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26277 of 2001 ALAKH NARAYAN GUPTA @ ALAKH PRASAD SAH, son of Sri Mohan Lal Sah, resident of Mohalla Dujara Patna, Police Station Budha Colony, District Patna … … Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rao Kundan Kumar Kramveer son of Sri Dukharan Mandal, resident of Mohalla Mogal Bazar, D.M. Road, Police Station Kotwali, District Munger, at present resident of Mandiri, Police Station Budha Colony, District Patna … … Opp. Partie For the petitioner: Shri Suraj Narayan Pd.Sinha, Sr.Adv. Shri Ranjan Kumar Sinha,Adv. For the State: Smt. Pushpa Sinha,A.P.P. For O.P.No.2: Shri S.A.Ahmad ----------- 4. 01.10.2010 This petition has been filed by the accused of Complaint Case No.172C of 2000 which is the basis of F.I.R. of Kotwali(Munger) P.S.Case No.148 of 2000. After investigating into the allegations, the police submitted charge sheet and, accordingly, the S.D.J.M., Munger passed order dated 6.11.2000 summoning the petitioner Alakh Narayan Gupta alias Alakh Prasad Sah to stand his trial for committing the offences under Sections 418,419,420 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code. Some of the facts are admitted that the petitioner had agreed to sell the land described in the annexed copies of deeds and, accordingly, the complainant and the 2 petitioner went to Bombay to register the sale deed. It is also not denied that when the Registrar called out the names of the parties to register the deed, the present petitioner scored off his signature on the deed and walked out of the Registry Office on some pretext and, thereafter, disappeared from Bombay. The complainant wanted to know about the reason for not registering the deed upon which the petitioner stated that he had stomach pain and his hands trembling on that account, his signature was scored off and he came back to Patna. The contention of the petitioner was his admission about the agreement to sell the property for consideration as stated by the complainant, but what the petitioner submitted was that there was a change in the deed which was presented for registration as the description of the land in the western boundary was changed as if the petitioner was selling the whole of the plot. It was pointed out during the course of hearing by drawing attention of the Court to Annexure-2 at page 35 that that particular deed which was the 3 original deed presented for registering the sale deed had in its western boundary “Ayodhya Bhagat and vendor’s land” indicating that the land of the petitioner was still out side the area covered by the deed in question. But, the deed which was presented before the Registrar in Bombay on 15.2.2000 had a different description of western boundary from which “the land of the Vendor” was deleted leaving the name of Ayodhya Bhagat only in that boundary which land the petitioner had never agreed to sell and, as such, he had good reasons for refusing to admit the execution and getting the sale deed registered. Two deeds appear annexed to the present petition. First sale deed runs from pages 31 to 42 of the present brief, whereas the second deed which was refused to be registered by admitting the execution of the sale deed by the petitioner appears from pages 43 to 44 of the present brief. On comparison of the same, I find that, whereas, in the first deed the western boundary of the land which was covered by that sale deed was described as “Ayodhya Bhagat and the land of 4 the Vendor”, in the second deed which was allegedly presented for registering before the Registrar in Bombay did not have “land of the vendor” in the western side of the boundary. Thus, I find that there could be good reason for the petitioner to refuse admitting the execution of the sale deed and registering it. The argument on behalf of the complainant was that the petitioner had not paid back the money and had misappropriated the same and further that the scoring off his signature on the sale deed so as to refusing execution and registration of the same tantamounts to forgery. I do not subscribe to that view of the complainant as the petitioner was not making any interpolation in the deed. It was simply scoring off his signature which was never part of the deed which could be said created for the purpose of creating the sale deed as also for registering it. Besides, he had good reason to score off his signature and to walk out of the contract. It could be for the complainant to enforce the performance of the part of the contract under law either by 5 preferring a suit before a competent civil court or by taking up proper proceedings before the Collector of the District under the Indian Registration Act. The whole prosecution appears an abuse of the process of the Court and the same is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.) Kanth/ N.A.F.R.