1. Heard the parties.

2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 2364 of 2011 including the order dated 16.5.2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence under sections 420/323 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. A complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2, in which it was alleged that accused no. 1-Haricharan Turi had showed his intention to sell the land measuring an area of 1.16 acres on a total consideration of Rs.5000/- per decimal. Thereafter, an agreement was executed in the year 2010 and the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.11,000/- to the accused no. 1 , who had further received an amount of Rs.1 Lac in two installments in presence of the witnesses. It is alleged that accused no. 1 had delayed the execution of the sale deed and later on he could come to know that the accused no. 1 had given a power of attorney to accused no. 2, who had executed a sale deed in favour of accused no. 3. It is therefore alleged that the accused persons by entering into a conspiracy and having full knowledge about the earlier transaction had entered into a subsequent transaction which led to institution of complaint case being C.P. Case No.2364 of 2011. Upon conducting an enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as his witnesses, cognizance was taken for the offence under section 420/323 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the main allegation has been levelled against the accused no. 1- Haricharan Turi, who is said to have sold the land earlier to the complainant. It has further been submitted that so far as petitioner is concerned, he was not aware of the earlier transaction with respect to the same land as nothing has been alleged in the complaint petition or in the solemn affirmation of the complainant to suggest so. It has also been submitted that being a power of attorney holder, the petitioner had sold the said land to the accused no. 3 on a bona fide belief that there was no earlier transaction with respect to the said land in question. Learned counsel submits that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner and in such circumstances, entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, has submitted that the petitioner along with other accused persons had entered into a conspiracy and had deceived the complainant by selling the same piece of land to accused no. 3, which was sold earlier to the complainant and for which an amount of Rs.1,11,000/- had already been received by the accused no. 1. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is the power of attorney holder of accused no. 1 and knowing fully well of the earlier transaction, he subsequently sold the same piece of land to accused no. 3, which itself shows a prima facie case against the petitioner and cognizance has rightly been taken by the learned court below and this application is therefore liable to be dismissed.

6. It appears that allegation has been levelled in the complaint petition with respect to selling of the same piece of land to accused no. 3, which was sold earlier to the complainant. However, the order taking cognizance reveals that accused no. 3 and 4 were not sent up for trial and summon was issued only to accused nos. 1 and 2, who is the present petitioner. Solemn affirmation of the complainant as well as the complaint petition does not reveal that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the land was earlier sold by Haricharan Turi to the complainant and for which an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- had already been taken by Haricharan Turi. The grievance of the complainant in the subsequent stage of the statement recorded under solemn affirmation is against Haricharan