Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for Opposite party No. 2 and learned Addl. P.P. for the state.

2. This petition u/S 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 29-01-2009 passed by Sri S.N. Ram, Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No. 865 C of 2008 by which and whereunder, he, having found prima facie case u/S 119, 120B, 201, 217, 381, 424 of the Indian Penal Code, ordered to issue summons against the petitioner and other accused persons.

3. The brief fact which lies to file this quashing petition is that Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Arun Thakur filed Complaint Case No. 865 C of 2008 against the petitioner and six others in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai alleging therein inter alia that on 19-07-2002, he purchased some lands from accused, Parasnath Poddar and paid the entire consideration amount. The sale deed of the aforesaid purchase was prepared but when the document was presented before the Sub Registrar for registration, the accused Parasnath Poddar did not turn up and after that, the Registrar opened Refusal Case No. 34 of 2002 and issued notices to accused, Parasnath Poddar. On 26-11-2002, accused, Parasnath Poddar as well as Heeralal Poddar appeared before the Sub Registrar and accused, Heera Lal Poddar disclosed this fact that accused, Parasnath Poddar was mentally ill and he was guardian of the aforesaid accused, Parasnath Poddar. The Sub Registrar though disbelieved the aforesaid assertion but rejected the registration of the above-stated sale deed. After the aforesaid rejection order, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed Registration Appeal No. 43 of 2003 before the District Magistrate-cum-District Registry Officer. It is further alleged that after due deliberation with his learned counsel, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 89 C of 2005 against accused, Heeralal Poddar and Parasnath Poddar which is still pending in the court of Sri A.K. Ram, Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Begusarai. It has further been stated that in both the aforesaid cases, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed Photostat copy of the said sale deed but the court asked for original document and after that, the Opposite Party No. 2 directed his clerk to obtain the certified copy of the aforesaid sale deed but even after several petitions, neither the aforesaid document nor its certified copy was ever handed over to the Opposite Party No. 2 and thereafter, he gave a legal notice to the officials of the registry office and also filed a petition under the provision of Right to Information Act and then, the registry office gave information to this effect that the original sale deed was not available with the record of Rejection Case No. 34 of 2002 and the Registry Office after great persuasion, only issued the certified copy of order of Sub Registrar. It has further been alleged that the petitioner as well as other accused, having entered into conspiracy, got removed the aforesaid valuable document from the record with an intent to destroy the evidence of Complaint Case No. 89C of 2005.

4. The learned lower court conducted an inquiry u/S 202 of the Cr.P.C. and having found prima facie case under the above-said sections, passed the impugned order dated 29-01-2009 against which, this quashing petition has been filed.

5. Notices were issued to Opposite Party No. 2 who appeared in this petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that according to complaint case itself, the order in Rejection Case No. 34 of 2002 was passed on 26-11-2002 and after that, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed appeal before the District Magistrate-cum-District Registration Officer in the year, 2003. It is further contended by him that at the relevant time, the petitioner was not posted in Begusarai district and the then Sub Registrar handed over charge to his office to the petitioner on 20-07-2005 in the light of Notification No. 1535 dated 30-06-20