1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 479 OF 2008 Ganpat Gopal Bhoir ...Applicant Vs. Sharad Ramchandra Thange & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Ganesh Gole, Advocate for Applicant Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashwin R. Kapadnis, Advocate for Respondents 1 to 7 i/b. Mr. Subash Desai, Advocate for Respondent No.8 CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 16TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.This application challenges the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Raigad District, Alibag recalling the process issued against the accused in the case. The applicant herein was the original complainant. The complaint was filed upon a transaction for sale of the land of the original owners accused Nos.1 to 7. After the agreement for sale was entered into on 22nd July 2005 when part payment of the purchase consideration was made by the applicant, the applicant made further payment of Rs.10,000/- to the original owners. This was on 10th July 2006, about a year after the transaction was entered into. This is shown to have 2 been paid as charge for permission for transfer of the agricultural land which was sought to be sold to the complainant under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1949. 2.The total consideration was Rs.1,87,000/-. Only a small part of the consideration was paid for the entire year. It is the case of the complainant that further amounts would have been paid only upon and after the required permission for agreement for transfer of the land was obtained. For that purpose one of the original owners, accused No.2, was given Power of Attorney. The complainant also made payment of expenses. The permission was not brought and hence, further payments were not made. 3.There was no civil suit filed by either of the parties and no injunction has been obtained by any of them. The original owners, accused Nos.1 to 7, entered into further transfer with the 3rd party i.e., accused No.8. He is, therefore, the subsequent purchaser for value and upon consideration. He is however, shown to have had notice of the earlier transaction. This is shown from his statement made during the course of investigation to the Police Officer on 5th December 2006, which the complainant s Advocate has relied upon. It is seen that he is not the subsequent purchaser for 3 value without notice is of the complainant s claim. 4.That being so, it is alleged that the parties colluded to cheat the complainant and criminal offence is made out. 5.The learned Magistrate has rightly considered that no criminal case is made out. The transaction indeed is a civil contract. Process is rightly recalled. No infirmity in the order is seen. 6.The Criminal Revision Application is rejected. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)