RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 despite service of notice.

2. The petitioners, in the present case, are seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance and issuance of summon dated 27.08.2013, passed in Complaint Case No. 435/2013, Tr. No. 2499/2013 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhabhua. The petitioners prays for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed the statement made in the complaint petition giving rise to Complaint Case No. 435/2013 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua. In the Complaint Petition, the complainant, Birendra Singh has alleged that the accused no. 1 & 3 came to him in January 2013 and requested him and his father to exchange a piece of land bearing Plot No. 348/481 in Chak Khata No. 47 measuring area 9½ decimals in lieu of Plot No. 345 under Khata No. 138 measuring area 3 decimals which is the ancestral land of the complainant. The complainant and his father believed the words of the accused and thinking that they will be getting land which are three times to the land which they are giving to the accused no. 3 by way of exchange, and therefore, a deed of exchange.

4. It is alleged that on 3rd February, 2013 when complainant and accused no. 3 went to registry office to seek advice of the deed writer, they were advised to execute sale deeds in place of deed of exchange. Both the parties agreed to the said advise and on 05.02.2013, the sale deeds were prepared by the deed writer. The land bearing Plot No. 345 in Khata No. 138 measuring area 3 decimals was transferred by way of sale in favour of accused no. 3 by father of the complainant and in the sale deed prepared in favour of father of the complainant, the vendor was Baikunth Singh, one Ram Pravesh Singh was the identifier of the executants on the sale deeds. It is alleged that father of the complainant admitted its execution in presence of Registrar believing the words of the accused persons that the sale deeds have been rightly written.

It is alleged that after obtaining the original sale deeds from the registry office when the complainant approached Halka Karmachari for mutation of his name in Register-II for purpose of payment of rent, the complainant was told that plot no. 349/482 was wrongly written in the sale deed and the said land does not belong to Baikunth Singh (accused no. 1). The complainant alleged that he came to the house of accused no. 2 & 3 and showed the sale deed which did not contain the correct plot number. The accused persons had wrongly got incorrect plot number entered in the sale deed. It is alleged that accused persons when told about this, they assaulted the complainant with fists. The complainant, therefore, alleged that they have entered into a conspiracy and committed the offence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in the entire complaint petition, the allegation is with regard to recording of an incorrect plot number which was nothing but a typographical error committed by the deed writer. There is no complaint regarding the boundary of the land and the complainant has not alleged that he had not been given possession of the land which was actually the subject matter of understanding between the parties.

6. Learned counsel further submits that both the parties are co-villagers and next door neighbours and there was no reason for the complainant to indulge in this filing of the complaint case as the petitiones were always ready and willing to put their signature on a correction deed. In paragraph 15 of the present application, the petitioners have made the following statements which reads as under:—

15. That the petitioners humbly submit that the petitioners have never got intention to cheat the complainant and still they are ready to execut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document