IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1268 of 2008 SAKALDEO SINGH, son of Late Janki Singh, resident of village Mirzapur, police station Kinjar district Arwal PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. JAGDISH SINGH, SON OF LATE KULDIP SINGH 3. RAJENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE KULDIP SINGH 4. SUKHLU SINGH, SON OF LATE NANHAK SINGH 5. NANDU SINGH, SON OF LATE NANHAK SINGH 6. JANARDAN SINGH, SON OF LATE NANHAK SINGH. 7. ARJUN SINGH, SON OF RADENI SINGH 8. MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF RAJ BALLABH SINGH, ALL ABOVE SL. NO. 2 TO 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MIRZAPUR, POLICE STATION KINJAR, DISTRICT ARWAL(JEHANABAD). …OPPOSITE PARTIES. For the Petitioner :Mr.Umesh Kumar For the State :Mr.Ahmad Ali,APP ----------- 02. 07.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is the complainant/informant of the case which gave rise to the trial being Tr.No.822/2006 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jehanabad. Learned trial court convicted the accuseds (o.p.nos.2 to 8 herein) for offences punishable under sections 419,420,467 and 468 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two years under each count. They were also imposed fine with default clause. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the opposite parties preferred Cr.Appeal No.47/2006 which has been considered and allowed by learned appellate court(Addl. District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.IV, Jehanabad) by order dated 15th September, 2009. By the said order, - 2 - learned appellate court acquitted the accuseds (opposite parties 2 to 8) of all the charges on the ground that the dispute basically reflects a civil dispute. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the aforesaid order passed by learned appellate court. The complaint was lodged by the petitioner alleging therein that Jagdish Singh and Rajendra Singh, both sons of Kuldeep Singh claiming themselves to have the title and possession over the plot no.112, measuring an area of 7 decimal, executed a registered deed of exchange of the same on 15.04.1998 in favour of accused Sukhdeo singh, Nandu Singh and Janardan Singh, all sons of Nanhak Singh and received the lands in exchange appertaining to khata no.13, plot no.143/812, measuring an area of 2 ½ decimals and also received 4 ½ decimal of land appertaining to plot no.148, measuring an area of 4 ¼ in exchange. On a consideration of material available on record, this is what the lower appellate court has found and held in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment: “12. The Ext-3(purcha of khatian) is not the conclusive proof to prove that the plot no.112, area 7 decimal was actually allotted to Janki Singh after a private partition with his brother Kuldeep Singh. It only corroborates possession and not the title. The complainant has not produced any rent receipt of the land or irrigational receipts or any document to get it proved that plot no.112, area 7 decimal was allotted to Janki Singh and to in exchange of that plot Janki Singh had got plot no.143/812, 148 total area 7 decimal from accused no.3,4 & 5 all sons of Late Nanhak Singh. The complainant has not produced any document to prove that after exchange he has the cultivating possession of plot no.143/812 & 148. 13. The learned counsel of the appellants/accused has convincingly argued that the accused Jagdish Singh and Rajendra Singh have not executed the exchange deed dated 15-4-98 by impersonation or fraudulently rather - 3 - they have executed it on the ground that the plot no.112, area 7 decimal was allotted to their father Kuldeep Singh. So after death of Kuldeep Singh, they have the right title and possession over plot no.112, area 7 decimal and as such they have executed the exchange deed dated 15.4.98 with the other accused no.3,4,5 in lieu of plot no.143/812 and 148 total area 7 decimal which they gave to the accused no.1 and 2 in exchange. The learned counsel of the appellant/accused has cogently argued that he ingredients of sec. 419,420,467 468 I.P.C. are not attracted at all. It is argued that the accused have not impersonated themselves in place of complainant Sakaldeo Singh for executing the exchange deed dated 15.4.98(Ext-4). They have not forged any document fraudulently rather presuming to have their right, title, interest in plot no.112, area 7 decimal, they have executed the exchange deed(Ext-4). It is also argued that the appellant/accused have not cheated the complainant Sakaldeo Singh by fraudulently inducing him to deliver any property to any one. It is rightly pointed out that the matter in dispute can be decided in civil case, for which there is already a title suit 31/98 pending in Munsif’s court Jehanabad.” This Court is satisfied that the appellate court has not committed any patent illegality in consideration of the matter meriting any interference. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )