IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15447 of 2007 MD.YUSUF, SON OF LATE CHULHAI MIAN, MOHALLA- MADIPUR, P.S.- KAZIMUHHAMADPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. GANGA DAS, SON OF LATE SUNDER DAS, MOHALLA, GOBARSAHI, P.S.- SADAR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 3. KAUSHAL KUMAR SON OF RAM BILASH DAS. 4. DAYANIDHI SON OF LATE BHOLA DAS. 5. UMESH RAM SON OF DEVCHANDRA RAM. 6. ASHOL SAH, S/O- NAGINA SAH. 7. SURENDRA SAH, SON OF NOT KNOWN. 8. NARESH PASWAN SON OF GUNNILAL PASWAN ALL 3 TO 8 RESIDENT OF MOHALLA GOBARSAHI, P.S.- SADAR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. For the petitioner : Mr. K.N. Diwakar, Advocate. ----------- 8 04.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No body appears on behalf of the opposite parties although notices were validly served. Petitioner is facing accusations punishable under Sections 420, 120B and 423 of Indian Penal Code. Allegation as per the complaint is that the complainant intended to sell a land appertaining to khata no. 210, khesra no. 511 measuring a total area of 10 decimals for which negotiations were made. Subsequently, it was found that in place of Khesra no. 511, Khesra no. 507 was incorporated in sale deed. It is the assertion of the complainant that the aforesaid plot contains the dwelling house of the complainant. An inquiry was made into the allegation wherein complainant and three witnesses were examined. They supported the allegations set out in the complaint. Resultantly the learned Magistrate having found that 2 there is a prima facie case substantiated against the accuseds and accordingly cognizance has been taken. While assailing the sustainability of the order, it is contended that the petitioner is only a witness to the execution of the sale deed. He is neither the seller nor the vendor. It is thus contended that his application in the case is thoroughly unjustified. This court on perusal of the order impugned finds that the learned Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction with regard to presence of a prima facie case on the strength of the evidence brought on record in course of inquiry made under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. The petitioner shall have adequate opportunity to raise the aforesaid issue/grievance at the appropriate stage of the proceeding. Since the order impugned does not suffer from any patent illegality, this Court declines to interfere therewith. The application is accordingly disposed of. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )