The judgment established the principle that a bona fide purchaser with a registered sale deed cannot be held criminally liable for acts committed by other co-accused, and the court has the power to quash proceedings if they are found to be mala fide.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Despite service of notice on Opposite Party No. 2, nobody appeared on his behalf, when the case was taken up and heard.

3. The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following relief:

“That the present petition is being filed for quashing of the order dated 31.08.2010 whereby and where under the learned J.M. 1st Patna has taken cognizance against the petitioner under sec 506, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 495 (C)/10 registered for the alleged offences punishable under sec 406, 420, 506 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.”

4. The Opposite Party No.2 filed Complaint Case No. 495(C) of 2010 against the petitioner and four others in which the allegation is against other co-accused that though the money was taken by them for purchase of flat by the Opposite Party No. 2, but when he went to the spot, it was found that the particular flat i.e. B-34 in Bimla Tower new Punaichak, Patna was sold to the petitioner, who was living there.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is the bona fide purchaser of the flat in question under a sale deed by the owner of the land which was duly registered on 26.12.2007. In support of such contention learned counsel referred to Annexure-3, which is copy of the registered sale deed. Learned counsel submitted that the entire grievance of the Opposite Party No. 2 relates to the other co-accused who are the owners/developers of the building but does not concern the petitioner and he has absolutely no role with regard to whatever grievance the Opposite Party No. 2 may have and he is residing peacefully with his family in the said flat. Learned counsel submitted that the present case, as far as he is concerned, is absolutely false and frivolous without there being any criminal complicity attributable to him.

6. Learned A.P.P. fairly submitted that as far as the petitioner is concerned, no criminal act is made out against him from the entire reading of the complaint case.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that a case for interference has been made out. The petitioner, being the purchaser, who had got registered sale deed of the flat in question in his favour, that too, from the owner of the land, cannot be said to have committed any illegality, much less relating to the grievance raised by the Opposite Party No. 2, which is against the other four co-accused. Merely because he is now occupying and living in the flat, which the Opposite Party No. 2 claims was promised to him by the other co-accused, will not make the petitioner party to or an accomplice in whatever criminal act may have been done by the other co-accused. Moreover, in the instant case, if at all the complainant desires to get the petitioner evicted after getting his right declared with regard to the flat in question, the same can only be through a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, the Court finds that the instant case is squarely covered under categories 1 and 7 of the categories enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph no. 102 in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported as 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which reads as under:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a serious of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and suf