IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellanious No.34066 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Bipat Mahton, Son of late Ram Khelawan Mahto 2. Dablu Mahto, Son of Bipat Mahton. 3. Bimal Mahton, Son of Bipat Mahton. 4. Dhiraj Kumar, Son of Bipat Mahton. All resident of Mohalla Sahganj, PS Sultanganj, District Patna. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Rajia Devi, Wife of Baijnath Saw, Resident of Mohalla Shahganj, PS Sultanganj, District Patna .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. P.N. Prasad Sahi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate ====================================================== 2 11-07-2011 The matter was heard on 8.7.2011 and postponed in order to allow counsel for the opposite party no. 2 to appear in Court and pursue the matter. The prosecution case is that the petitioner no. 1 who is the vendor had executed a sale deed on 7.2.2005 in favour of the complainant. The said deed indicates that the land sold was measuring 8 Dhurs and was in respect of Plot No. 198. The petitioner no. 1 admittedly received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the said land. The complaint has been filed alleging that the area of land has been wrongly recorded as 8 decimals instead of 10 decimals and as such the petitioner no. 1 and his sons i.e petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are guilty for offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is well settled that the sale deed is made and prepared in the registry office and is thereafter executed. There is no case made out that there has been interpolation in the sale deed or that there was cutting etc. in the sale deed. No material or document has been brought on record which would indicate that there was an agreement prior to the execution of the sale deed with respect to 10 Dhurs of land. The evidence that has come under Section 202 specifically states that the sale deed was executed after the land was measured and as such in the opinion of this Court, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Sections 420 or 406 of the Indian Penal Code will be made out in the facts of this case. In the result, the order dated 15.7.2008, passed in C.A. No. 109 of 2006 is quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Smt. Sheema Ali Khan, J)