As per the petitioner the occurrence as alleged is in two parts. The first part is that without paying the full consideration money, the land and building got registered in favour of the accused persons thus the accused persons have cheated the petitioner. The second part is that the accused persons entered into the premises and demolished the portion of the house. As per the petitioner, both the orders does not discuss the statement of the inquiry witness rather dismissed the complaint petition. It is submitted that so far as the demolition of the construction is concerned an offence is made out for which cognizance should have been taken. 5. After hearing the parties and after going through the entire record, I find that admittedly the sale deed was registered in favour of the accused person. From the impugned revisional order, I find that in the sale deed, there is recital that possession was delivered to the accused persons. Thus from the aforesaid fact it would be clear that accused persons was in possession of the house and the building which was demolished. This fact gets fortified from the argument of the petitioner which suggest that the mutation was effected in respect of the premises in favour of the accused persons. It is well settled principle of law that though mutation does not create a title but it reflects the possession. The mutation in favour of the accused persons suggest that government found that they were in possession of the property. If any part of the property was demolished by the accused it can easily be said that they have demolished their own property which cannot attract any offence. So far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned that without paying the entire consideration amount, the sale deed was executed, I find that it is not the case of the complainant that in the sale deed it was mentioned that the balance amount should be paid at a later date. It is the admitted case that in the sale deed it has been mentioned that entire consideration amount has been received by the complainant. The petitioner admittedly has filed a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed which is still pending. Thus the records, i.e. the sale deed and the fact of mutation in favour of the accused speaks against the complainant/petitioner. No criminal offence is made out in the entire transaction. If these type of complaint is entertained, the same will give rise to unscrupulous acts and criminal justice delivery system will be hijacked by the blackmailers.
