IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.56243 OF 2007 1. SITA RAM PRASAD, SON OF LATE JAGARNATH PRASAD 2. SUDAMA PRASAD @ SUDAMA PRASAD GUPTA, SON OF SHRI SITA RAM PRASAD 3. BHOLA PRASAD @ BHOLA NATH PRASAD, SON OF SHRI SITA RAM PRASAD 4. KRISHNAAUTOR PRASAD, SON OF SHRI SITA RAM PRASAD ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KOLHUARWA, POLICE STATION MOTIHARI TOWN, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN ……………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MANJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SHRI YOGYA NAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BHAWNAIPUR ZIRAT, POLICE STATION MOTIHARI TOWN, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN ……………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** 2 30/03/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has filed this application challenging the order dated 09.11.2007/12.11.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 1930 of 2007 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Motihari has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 417, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The short facts of the long complaint petition are that the accused nos. 1 and 3, the land owners, have executed a deed of sale in favour of the petitioner who is accused no. 5 in the complaint petition, although there was an agreement with the land owners and the complainant that 06 dhurs of land would be sold to him. The complainant’s main grievance is that he had handed 2 over a sum of about ten lakhs to the petitioner who is a co-villager for 5 kathas & 2 dhurs of land and the co- purchaser has got the entire land executed in his favour by a sale deed. However, while going through the complaint petition, para by para, the Court finds that the complainant has not stated anywhere in the complaint petition that he had handed over the money to the petitioner to make payment to the land holder, accused nos. 1 and 3 of the complaint petition. In the absence of the pleading in the complaint petition itself, this Court cannot hold that the petitioners are liable to be punished under Sections 417 & 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the order taking cognizance dated 09.11.2007/12.11.2007 is hereby quashed as far as it concerns the petitioners. In the result, this application is allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)