A complaint disclosing a prima facie case of cheating and misappropriation justifies the framing of charges against the accused.

S. H. S. Abidi, J.

1. The petitioner Dhruvadeo Mishra has filed this application under Sec.482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the order dated 30-7-1985 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in Trial No.2258/79 framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. (1541 of 1984) It has also been prayed that the entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.

2. Smt. Phulmati Kuer wife of Lakhan Pandey filed a complaint against the petitioner Dhruvdeo Mishra, Kadir Mian and Jitendra Prasad in the court of the learned C. J. M. , Gopalganj, saying that the petitioner had agreed to purchase plot No.250 measuring 5 khatas from her for a sum of rs 3,000/- and it was agreed that the entire amount will be paid to the complainant-vendor on the day of registration at the time of exchange of receipt. On this the petitioner and accused No.2 took the complainant to the registry office and got the stamp papers purchased through her and gave the stamp papers to accused No.3 to scribe the deed and the petitioner directed to write the deed in favour of his son Hari Shankar Mishra. The complainant had told the scribe that there was aggreement for selling the 5 khatas of laud for rs 3,000/- Then accused Nos. I and 2 asked accused No.3 to obtain the thumb impression of the complainant on the stamp papers and write the contents of the deed Accused No.3 took the thumb impression on the papers and accused Nos.1 and 2 took the complainant to a shop for taking meal Then the accused paid to the shop-keeper and asked her to eat. The accused Nos.1 and 2 then told the complainant that they were going to market for taking meal. After taking meal when the complainant went to accused No.3, the scriber, then she saw accused Nos.1 and 2 sitting and talking with the scribe. The scriber said that it was too late and the sale deed papers are to be filed and then the papers were filed in the registry office and on the call the complainant accepted the execution of the deed and the accused no.1 identified her before the Registrar. The receipt of the registration was given to her. Then she demanded the amount of money from the accused no.1 before the accused Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner then told her that a man was to come with the amount but he has not yet reached, and he asked her to keep the receipt with herself and on reaching home after giving the money receipt will be taken. After reaching home she demanded money from the petitioner several times but the petitioner had been avoiding the payment on one or the other pretext. At last the complainant went to Gopalganj and told ail the matters to her lawyer who sent a notice to the petitioner and demanded the payment of the amount of sale. But the petitioner did not send any reply nor paid the amount. Getting helpless she deposited Rs.16/-as fine in the registry office on 27-7-1979 and obtained the sale deed.

3. When she got the deed read through her lawyer then she came to know that the accused in collusion had got the sale deed in respect of her 5 kathas of land for Rs.3,000/- and they had got wrongly written that the entire sum of sale has already been paid to her before the execution of the deed. So the accused have cheated the complainant on account of which she was suffered loss. In the complaint it has been further mentioned that the accused Nos.2 and 3 are in collusion with accused No.1 and so the accused may be punished in accordance with law. On these allegations the complaint (Annexure-1)was filed on which the cognizance has been taken. The accused have appeared before the learned Magistrate.

4. The order-sheet dated 29-6-1985 reads that charges were to be framed. The complainant was absent and an application on her behalf was made. One of the accused was present and two were absent. Both parties were heard on the question of charges. On looking to the evidence there appeared to be material against the accused under Sections 406 and 420 I. P. C. The case was adjourned to 24-7-19