Point of Law: Term “criminal conspiracy” is defined under Section 120A of the IPC as to mean when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act with is not illegal by illegal means

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner by way of this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeks quashment of order dated 24-9-2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.625/2010, whereby complaint case has been registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

2. The petitioner was, at the given point of time, member of Sarvoday Grih Nirman Samiti (Maryadit), Raipur (for short, ‘the Society’), which is a registered co-operative society in terms of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. On 20-9-2005, the petitioner applied for allotment of plot No.36, area 3,300 sq.ft. owned by that Society. At that particular time, registered body of the Society was not in existence and thus Liquidator was appointed under Section 70 of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, therefore, the petitioner’s application was considered by the Liquidator of the Society and on 27-9-2005, the Liquidator of the Society allotted plot to the petitioner subject to the condition that advertisement in respect of ownership of the plot will be published in the newspaper and permission will be obtained from the Registrar, Co-operative Societies and subject to other conditions, the plot was allotted vide Annexure P2. Ultimately, objections were invited on 25-4-2008 vide Annexure P-3 and also it is said that vide Annexure P-1, the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies has directed the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies to direct the Liquidator of the Society to proceed in accordance with law for allotment of vacant plot. Ultimately, on 1-6- 2009, the subject land was registered in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure P-4 and sale deed was registered by the Liquidator in her favour on payment of consideration of Rs. 3,30,000/- and thereafter, it is said that the petitioner came into possession.

3. It appears that thereafter, respondent No.1 herein made a complaint to the police and it was investigated by the Station House Officer, Police Station Gol Bazaar, Raipur on 19-6-2010 and it was found that the subject land was allotted to Navdeep Singh, respondent No.2 herein, but he did not make any construction for 17 years and thereafter, the Liquidator of the Society has allotted the subject land to the petitioner after inviting objections and after payment of consideration amount by the petitioner, as such, no offence is said to have been made out against the petitioner. Thereafter, complaint was filed on 8-6-2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC in which the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 24-9-2010 took cognizance of the offences and directed for issuance of process against the petitioner which has been called in question in this petition.

4. Notice has been served to respondent No.1 on 24-7-2017, but despite service of notice, no one has entered appeared on behalf of respondent No.1.

5. The State/respondent No.2 has filed return holding that the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioner is in accordance with law.

6. Mr. T.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is only and only a bona fide purchaser of the subject land and that too allotted by the Society and further, even objections have been invited from all concerned vide Annexure P-3 on 25-4-2008 and the petitioner was allotted plot on 27-9-2005, and after more than four years, on 1-6-2009, the land was registered in her favour. As such, being a bona fide purchaser, the petitioner has purchased land from the vendor for a valid and proper consideration and she is nowhere connected with forgery and fabrication of documents and the police has already investigated the matter and submitted report vide Annexure P-5 on 19-6-2010 that has not been questioned by the complainant and that has become final and therefore the order taking cognizance de