The main legal point established in the judgment is that a bona fide purchaser who has paid valid consideration for the property cannot be held responsible for cheating and breach of trust, especially when the complainant's allegations are not supported by the facts available on record.

1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 7.8.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, No. 1, North, Udaipur in F.R. Case No. 8/2011 whereby, cognizance was taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B I.P.C.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant respondent No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1 North Udaipur with the allegation that the accused named in the F.I.R. took her under the pretext and assurance of getting a loan for her and thereafter, got a fraudulent sale deed executed for sale of her land in favour of the petitioner.

3. The complaint was forwarded to the Police Station Dhanmandi for investigation where F.I.R. No. 36/2011 was registered and investigation commenced. The Police upon concluding the investigation, filed a negative Final Report in the case. The complainant filed a protest petition against the Final Report and examined herself and two witnesses viz. Pawan and Panna Lal under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate rejected the Final Report and proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B I.P.C. The order taking cognizance has been assailed by the petitioner by way of the instant misc. petition.

4. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the property in question for valid consideration. Th& consideration of the sale was paid to the complainant by four cheques and some amount was paid in cash. He further submits that the registered sale deed has not been challenged in any Court of law to the best of petitioner's knowledge. He further submits that the complainant's son Pawan also stood as a witness to the registered sale deed. He contends that the Police after thorough investigation of the case found the case to be a false one, with the conclusion that the complainant herself, got the registered sale deed of the land executed in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, as the cost of land escalated, the F.I.R. in question was filed for oblique motives and for extorting more money. Learned Counsel thus submits that the order taking cognizance against the petitioner is ex facie illegal and amounts to a gross abuse of the process of the Court.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has also supported the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submits that the Police thoroughly investigated the case and gave a Final Report thus, the order taking cognizance is not justified.

6. Learned Counsel for the complainant respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner but he too does not dispute the fact that the sale of the land was performed by executing a registered sale deed. He also does not dispute the fact that a part of the amount of consideration (4 lacs) was paid to the complainant by four cheques (fllac x 4).

7. It is not in dispute that the registered sale deed bears the signature of complainant's own son Pawan Chatur, who is a witness in the registered sale deed and the sale deed has not been challenged in any Court of law. Thus, the complainant cannot be permitted to say that the sale was got fraudulently executed by keeping her in dark. Once having received the amount of consideration, the complainant is precludea from taking a turn around and alleging that the amount was as a matter of fact loan procured for her by the accused. Otherwise also, the petitioner is the purchaser of the property in question and has paid the consideration of sale. Thus, she cannot be held to be responsible for ihe offences of cheating and breach of trust. Thus, the order taking cognizance against the petitioner is absolutely illegal and amounts to a gross abuse of the process of the Court.

8. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion even if the allegations levelled by the complainan