IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.81 of 2010 RAVINDER KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 28.10.2010 This application was heard at the stage of admission. The delay in filing of this appeal is condoned. This is an application for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 3rd September 2009 of acquittal as passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi, Patna in Case No. 263© of 2004 whereby the O.P.Nos. 2 to 6 who were tried for the charges u/s 420, 120B, 457 and 458 IPC have been acquitted of the charges. Complainant’s case was that he purchased a plot of land as described in the plaint from one Bakhoran Yadav for a consideration money of Rs.45,500/- vide sale-deed dated 30th June 2004. The complainant asserted that the purchased land was ancestral land of Bakhora Yadav. Further case of the complainant was that subsequently vide sale-deed dated 2nd July 2004, the same land was purchased by O.P.Rajkalia Devi vide sale-deed dated 2nd July 2004 from Shakunti Devi, the wife of the said Bakhora Yadav. The complainant alleged that the subsequent transaction as made by O.P.Rajkalia Devi was a result of creation of forged and fabricated sale-deed and that on the basis of that sale-deed they had started putting claim over the complainant’s land when he had gone there to look after his paddy crop grown on the land. In support of his case, the complainant examined two witnesses. P.W.1 was the complainant himself and P.W.2 Kaushlya Devi was his wife. The accused/O.Ps had also examined two witnesses. The learned trial court considered that the complainant stated about the claim put by the O.Ps on his land and about execution of sale-deed in favour of O.Ps which, according to him, was a forged deed but no villager was examined to support this and only the complainant and his wife came to support their case. It was also considered that in his complaint, the complainant stated that the land which he purchased from Bakhora Yadav was the ancestral land of Bakhora Yadav but in his evidence he contradicted saying that Bakhora Yadav had purchased the land in the name of his mother. Learned trial court further considered that the complainant was not able to produce any paper in order to show the title of his vendor nor even on a chit of paper, including mutation in his favour was produced in court. It was considered by the learned trial court that in absence of indication of any title shown in favour of complainant’s vendor his purchase was itself shady. In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Title Suit filed by the O.P. Rajkalia Devi with regard to the land is also pending, though the number of the said Title Suit could not be disclosed by the learned counsel. It also appears from the evidence of the complainant as discussed by the trial court that a Title Suit is pending between the parties with regard to the land and that earlier a proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C. had initiated but the court dealing with the proceeding had passed an odder to the effect that the dispute related to a matter which required to be decided by the civil court. Thus, a civil dispute was also indicated with regard to the land. In the facts and circumstances, the learned trial court came to find that the charges were not proved, hence, the O.Ps were acquitted. On consideration of the facts and circumstances, I fail to find any perversity and illegality in the judgment passed by the learned trial court. Therefore, it needs no interference. The application is dismissed as such. Jay/ (C.M.Prasad,J)