RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners, in the present case, are seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance and issuance of summon dated 03.07.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna by which cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken in Complaint Case No. 330(C) of 2012.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed the statement made in the complaint petition, as contained in Annexure-1. The complainant-opposite party no. 2 has alleged that under an agreement to sell dated 22.11.2005, the accused persons who are petitioners in the present case and their mother namely, Devanti Devi, agreed to sell the land bearing plot no. 642, Khata No. 129, Thana 37, Tauzi 5325 in Mauza Abdul Rahmanpur measuring an area of 6 decimals.

4. It is alleged that the accused persons taking the complainant in belief received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the accused no. 1 signed the agreement to sell showing receipt of advance and promised to execute a registered deed but they kept on postponing execution of the deed on one pretext or another.

5. The complainant-opposite party no. 2 claims that he kept on believing the word of the accused persons, but the accused persons did not execute the registered deed. It is alleged that on 20.07.2011, complainant-opposite party no. 2 went to the house of the accused persons and requested them to execute the registered deed, on which the accused persons allegedly became angry, abused the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and ousted by pushing him and told him that they will not execute the registered deed.

6. It is further alleged that the accused persons did not execute the registered deed in respect of the land and also did not reply to the legal notice.

7. In course of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the complainant-opposite party no. 2 produced three witnesses namely, Indradev Rai, Dina Nath Rai, and Ashok Kumar who have supported the complainant’s case.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without adding or substracting anything out of the complaint petition a bare reading of the same would show that no criminal offence muchless an offence under Section 420, 323 and 504 I.P.C. would be made out. In his submission, the case is at best that of a civil dispute which has been given colour of criminal proceeding by making a story setting up the date of 20.07.2011 and 25.01.2012, where the complainant-opposite party no. 2 alleged that the accused persons abused the complainant and told him that the registered deed shall not be executed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Murari Lal Gupta Vs. Gopi Singh since reported in (2006) 2 SCC (Cri.) 430; he has placed specific reliance upon paragraph 6, which is quoted hereunder for ready reference:—

“6. We have perused the pleadings of the parties, the complaint and the orders of the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. Having taken into consideration all the material made available on record by the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner are wholly unwarranted. The complaint is an abuse of the process of the court and the proceedings are, therefore, liable to be quashed. Even if all the averments made in the complaint are taken to be correct, yet the case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Penal Code is not made out. The complaint does not make any averment so as to infer any fraudulent or dishonest inducement having been made by the petitioner pursuant to which the respondent parted with the money. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner does not have the property or that the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document