Presumption of proper execution and validity of a registered document places the onus of proof on the party seeking to rebut the presumption, and prosecuting the purchaser in a criminal case without establishing misrepresentation or fraud would be an abuse of the court's process.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 21.05.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in G. R. NO. 956 of 2013, arising out of Sheikhpura P. S. Case No. 314 of 2013 whereby the application filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge from the case has been rejected.

3. The first information report of the aforesaid Sheikhpura P. S. Case No. 314 of 2013 is based on a Complaint Case No. 304C/2013 dated 25.07.2013 instituted by one Birendra Pandey which was referred to the police by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. The first information report was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on 03.10.2013.

4. The allegations made in the complaint by the complainant Birendra Pandey is that his wife Krishna Kumari Devi inherited certain landed property from her parents in village Gawai, Police Station and District-Sheikhpura. He stated that one Nago Ram takes care of her property. Since his wife, who is an illiterate lady, needed money for her treatment, she asked Nago Ram to negotiate for sale of five decimal of land. It is stated that in presence of said Nago Ram and Krishna Kumari Devi, the petitioner agreed to purchase the land bearing Khesra No.2997, Khata No. 591 admeasuring five decimal for a consideration of Rs.60,000/- On 16.07.2013, Krishna Kumari Devi went to registration office for execution of sale deed. The deed writer prepared the deed on which Krishna Kumari Devi put her thumb impression even without the knowledge of its contents. She was assured that payment would be made after registration of the deed. Krishna Kumari Devi came back to her village-Gawai after executing the deed. Later on, on 20.07.2013, when the complainant along with his wife came to village- Gawai, he came to know that the petitioner got 2.74 acres of land registered in his name instead of five decimal land by playing fraud and even without paying the consideration amount.

5. On completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner pursuant to which cognizance was taken under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was summoned to face trial.

6. At the stage of trial, an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking discharge. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura dismissed the said application vide order dated 21.05.2016, which is under challenge in the present application.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no truth behind the allegation made in the complaint. He submitted that even in course of investigation, witnesses did not support the allegations made in the complaint, but merely on the basis of opinion of supervising officer, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. He submitted that upon consideration of the document submitted therewith, it appears that there is no sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner in the present case. He submitted that if a document is registered it carries a presumption of proper execution as also the contents thereof. He contended that no ingredient of the offence under which cognizance has been taken is attracted.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 submitted that investigation conducted by the investigating officer was collusive in nature and, thus, a complaint was made before the Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police in his supervision note found the allegation made against the petitioner to