CRIMINAL REVISION No.11 OF 2002 -------- Against the order dated 26.9.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Purnia, in Cr. Revision no.47 of 2001 arising out of the order dated 16.12.2000 passed by Shri Anil Kumar Singh, J.M., Ist Class in C.A. case no.753 of 2000. -------- 1. JANAK RAM, son of late Misri Ram & no.2 Bhagwano Devi, wife of Janak Ram, both residents of village-Fullbaria, P.S. & P.O.-Kasba, District- Purnia------------------------------(Petitioners) Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR & no.2 Manoranjan Das, son of Lakhau Chandra Das, resident of village-Fullbaria, P.S. & P.O.Kasba, District-Purnia----------------- ------------------------------------(Opp. Parties) --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikaram Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH --------- Mandhata Singh,J. In the case allegation is made that Kusum Lal Mushahar who purchased complainant’s land on 21.7.2009 for consideration money of Rs.3,000/-was really for Rs.1,300/-, the excess amount was shown when Kusum Lal felt need of the money and he wanted to sell the purchased land. He was approached by the complainant to re-sell, the same was accepted and land in question was returned back. Later, land was sold in favour of these petitioners by Kusum Lal Mushahar. 2. Learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure finding the case of civil nature. That was challenged by the complainant before the learned Sessions Judge that malafide intention was there in selling the land in favour of these petitioners. 3. There are some basic ingredients for a valid sale. Kusum Lal Mushahar, who admittedly purchased the land from the complainant, sold the same in favour of these petitioners. A valid deed was existing in the name of Kusum Lal Mushahar. As per 2 complainant, the land was re-sold in favour of the complainant. 4. If resale is possible by swearing an affidavit is a question to be considered even for constituting any offence and the act alleged comes out from the civil litigation. 5. No transfer is valid for immovable property by swearing an affidavit. That is only possible by a registered sale deed. If transfer is done by registered sale deed then there is every presumption of having its knowledge to all for purpose of transfer as enquiry is made before transfer, otherwise a bonafide purchaser making payment can in no way be deprived from his right over the purchased land. 6. There is no occasion of making any observation that complainant may be in conspiracy with Kusum Lal Mushahar in preparing such an affidavit for deprieving the right of bonafide purchaser through registered deed. But in any case no criminal liability can be fixed upon these petitioners. This much of the aspect has not been considered by the learned Sessions judge in interfering the conclusion of the learned Magistrate. Any transfer of immovable property can be validated or invalidated by civil court only. If the affidavit was sufficient for the same that was also to be reconsidered by civil court. Once after validation; that to a valid transfer act of these petitioners cannot be brought under the purview of criminal act. In that sense, the matter was of civil nature and that has rightly been decided by the learned Magistrate as to the concern of these petitioners. 7. This Criminal Revision application is allowed. The order of the learned Sessions judge passed on 26.9.2001 in Cr. Revision no.47 of 2001 is 3 set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate is allowed to be confirmed. ( Mandhata Singh, J ) Patna High Court, The 29th July, 2009 A.F.R./Sudip