IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26750 of 2008 Sanjay Kumar, son of Sri Devendra Singh, resident of Village-Kisunpur, P.S. Kako, in the district of Jehanabad. ……………………………………………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Smt. Geeta Devi, wife of Sri Suresh Prasad, resident of Village-Mohalla-Aspatal Road, Jehanabad, P.S. and District-Jehanabad. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. J.N. Thakur, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate. --------------------------------- O R D E R 5. 13.10.2011. The petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 1.6.2007 passed by the court of Sri Raj Narayan Nigam, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jehanabad, in Complaint Case No.334 of 2007/Trial No.1629 of 2008, whereby the five accused persons, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, have been summoned under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on inquiry, finding prima facie case under Sections 420, 468, 423 and 467/34 of the Indian Penal 2 code and also the said criminal proceeding. 2. The facts leading to this application is that the complainant-opposite party no.2, Smt. Geeta Devi, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.334 of 2007 with the allegation that on 15.4.2007, she received information that her husband, Suresh Prasad, who is mentally weak, has sold some ancestral land. On receiving information, she informed to her brother-in-law, Vindeshwari Prasad. On 16.4.2007, her brother-in-law, Vindeshwari Prasad, went to the Registration Office, Jehanabad, to know regarding the said information and found the same to be true. Thereafter, on 17.4.2007 her brother-in-law applied for the certified copy of the sale deed and got the same on 20.4.2007. When the complainant-opposite party no.2, saw the certified copy of the sale deed, she came to know on 13.4.2007 that out of Plot No.174/Old Plot No.21-22 of Khata No.193/Old Khata No.123, area 70 decimals in which whole share is 11 ¾ decimals, 6 ½ decimals belonging to the share of her brother-in-law, Vindeshwari Prasad, had been sold by her husband. The accused-petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, by administering liquor to her husband, Suresh Prasad, got the sale deed executed regarding the aforesaid land in the 3 name of his wife, Geeta Devi, in collusion with the deed- writer, Kamlesh Sharma, Brajesh Kumar and Subhai Shankar Navneet. The further case of the complainant/ opposite party no.2 is that she came to know from her husband that in the sale deed the valuation of the land had been shown as Rs.12,45,000/- but the same has not been paid by the accused-petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, at the time of execution of the sale deed by giving assurance to pay the said amount on withdrawing from the Bank. As such, her husband, did not receive a single penny as consideration amount. The land has not been partitioned between her husband and her brother-in-law, Vindeshwari Prasad and the revenue receipt was being issued jointly in their names. It is further alleged that while it was shown in the sale deed that the land has been sold for the marriage of daughter but there was no plan in the running year to perform the marriage of her daughter. Her brother-in-law, Vindeshwari Prasad, has been shown as a witness in the sale deed but on query he denied his signature. As such, all the accused persons, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioner under conspiracy got executed the sale deed from her husband with an intention to cheat him. The complainant-opposite party no.2 has further 4 alleged that regarding the said sale deed, Title Suit No.61 of 2007 has been filed in the court of Sub Judge-I, Jehanabad on 1.5.2007 on behalf of her brother-in-law, Vindeshari Prasad, and her two minor sons, namely, Saurabh Kumar and Siddharth Kumar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Suresh Prasad, the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.2, Smt. Geeta Devi, was in full conscious mind at the time of execution of the sale deed and his photograph was also pasted on the sale deed and Vindeshwari Prasad, the brother-in-law of the complainant-opposite party no.2, has also put his signature on the sale deed as a witness on payment of the full consideration amount and only with a view to harass and get some more money, the false complaint case has been filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2, Smt. Geeta Devi, the wife of vendor, Suresh Prasad. It is also submitted that Suresh Prasad, the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.2 has also executed the sale deed in the name of Geeta Devi, the wife of the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, on 14.11.2005 in which the complainant- opposite party no.2 and her brother-in-law, Vindeshwari Prasad, put their signature as witnesses. It is also submitted 5 that from perusal of the complaint petition, the dispute appears to be civil in nature and Title Suit No.61 of 2007 has also been filed on behalf of brother-in-law of the complainant, namely, Vindeshwari Prasad and her two minor sons, namely, Saurabh Kumar and Siddharth Kumar, to declare the sale deed void, earlier to filing of the complaint petition, as such, setting in motion of criminal proceeding by taking cognizance of offence through the impugned order amounts to abused of process of law. 4. From perusal of the complaint petition of the complainant-opposite party no.2, Smt. Geeta Devi, it appears that the petitioner in collusion with the other accused, named in the complaint petition, got executed the sale deed in favour of his wife from Suresh Prasad, husband of the complainant-opposite party no.2, who is said to be mentally weak, without making payment of consideration amount. Annexure-‘4’ to this application, which is a plaint of Title Suit No.61 of 2007, goes to show that the Title Suit has been filed on behalf of Vindeshari Prasad, the brother-in-law of the complainant-opposite party no.2 and Saurabh Kumar and Siddharth Kumar, the minor sons of the complainant- opposite party no.2 , for declaring the sale deed dated 6 13.4.2007 as void executed by Suresh Prasad, the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.2 in favour of the wife of the petitioner. If the allegations as made in the complaint petition are considered to be true at their face value, the dispute appears to be civil in nature and Title Suit No.61 of 2007 with regard to the land covered in the sale deed is also pending the court of Sub-Judge-I, Jehanabad, since before the filing of the complaint petition. As such, the initiation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner through the impugned order would be an abuse of the process of the court. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 1.6.2007 passed by Sri Raj Narayan Nigam, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jehanabad, in Complainant Case No.334 of 2007/Trial No.1629 of 2008 as well as the criminal proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case with respect to the petitioner is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)