Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—Both these applications under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (in short, Cr.P.C.) stem from two different charge-sheets bearing numbers 199 of 2007 and 199-A of 2007 arising out of same Case crime No. 302 of 2007, Police Station Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar whereby applicants Moti Chand (vendor), Bhadai (margin witness), Jagan Nath (margin witness) and Satya Narain Shah (husband of purchaser have been charge-sheeted under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and Section 82 of Registration Act, 1908 (in short, Registration Act) Police Station Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar.

2. It appears that applicant No. 2 Moti Chand sold his half share out of his agricultural property bearing plot No. 202 to applicant No. 1 Phoolmati located at northern side of whole plot. Applicant No. 3 Bhadai and applicant No. 4 Sri Jagan Nath acted as margin witnesses of the said sale-deed. It is stated that vendor Moti Lal (applicant No. 2) belongs to scheduled caste category and therefore, he was required to seek permission of the Collector to sell the said property in favour of applicant No. 1 Smt. Phoolmati, who does not belong to scheduled caste category. It is alleged that disputed sale-deed indicates that purchaser Smt. Phoolmati belongs to scheduled caste category. Sale-deed was executed and got registered under the provisions of Registration Act with this wrong averment.

3. Present case did not stem from the complaint of either vendor or purchaser or of witnesses but it was initiated by one Ramanand total stranger to the present transaction. Ramanand has not disclosed his interest in the disputed property. However, record discloses that half of plot No. 202 belonging to one Shaym Lal, brother of Moti Chand, vendor (accused/applicant No. 2) was also sold in different transaction. This earlier transaction also involved various litigations. Apparently, a half share of plot No. 202 owned by Shyam Lal was sold to one Singhasan on 29.8.2006 but before a sale-deed could be registered in favour of said purchaser, Shyam Lal perhaps changed his mind and sale-deed could not be registered and same plot was sold to Ramanand, respondent No. 2 (complainant in this case) after two days i.e. on 31.8.2006.

4. Complainant/respondent No. 3 Ramanand transferred his share of plot No. 202 through sale-deed dated 16.3.2010 in favour of one Kailash Behari Pandey but sale-deed dated 16.3.2010 was held to be void as permission for sale taken by Ramanand was cancelled by Collector, Kushi Nagar vide order dated 12.8.2011. This order was confirmed up to the stage of Board of Revenue.

5. But, admittedly, Ramanand, complainant has nothing to do with the half share of plot No. 202 of Moti Chand (vendor in this case). Though, later on, it was argued by his counsel that present sale-deed, in addition to making of wrong averment about caste of purchaser also gave misleading boundaries and some portion of property of original owner, namely, Shyam Lal was also made part of this present sale-deed executed by Moti Chand. Though this allegations is absent from the contents of First Information Report (in short, FIR).

6. It is pertinent to point-out that one Kailash Behari Pandey had also filed application No. 365 of 2006 of similar contents under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Annexure SA A-3 to the supplementary affidavit dated 6.8.2012. This application with similar allegations was rejected by learned Magistrate on the ground that no cognizable offence is made out. But after almost more than a year, complainant Ramanand lodged the present FIR dated 26.6.2007. The matter was investigated and two charge-sheets, one bearing No. 199/2007 submitted against Moti Chand (vendor), Smt Phoolmati (purchaser), Bhadai (margin witness), Jagan Nath (margin witness). Subsequently, another charge-sheet bearing No. 199-A/2007 was filed against Satya Narain, husband of purchaser for the same offence. Learned Magistrate took cognizance in b