Allowed

Md. Ozair Alam v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC15 Jul 2024CR. MISC./31136/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner facing Section 420 IPC cognizance over an alleged double sale of registered land sought quashing of the complaint proceeding. Finding mutation records showed no competing claim and no evidence of sale to other persons, the High Court held no cheating case was made out and quashed the order of cognizance.

What the court decided

AI extract

Md. Ozair Alam Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31136 of 2016

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2016 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Banka

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Md. Ozair Alam, Son of Late Hazi Wazahat Hussain Resident of MohallaMallick Tola, Banka, P.O. and P.S.- Banka, District-Banka

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Bihar

¶8

Niranjan Yadav, son of Arjun Prasad Yadav Resident of village - Laskari , P.O. Jogdiha and P.S. -Banka, Dist.- Banka

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajballabh Singh, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶12

12 15-07-2024

¶13

The petitioner is accused in connection with Complaint Case No. 86 of 2016, cognizance of which was taken for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC.

¶14

The petitioner has filed the instant Cr. Misc. Case for quashing of the above-mentioned criminal proceeding pending against him in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Banka.

¶15

The Opposite Party No. 2 is the complainant before the Trial Court. The case of the Opposite Party No. 2/complainant is that he purchased a piece of land from the petitioner on valuable consideration. The sale-deed was duly registered. However, the petitioner allegedly sold out the same

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31136 of 2016(12) dt.15-07-2024 2/3

¶17

land to different persons and after purchase, he came to know that different persons were demanding possession of the said land from the Opposite Party No. 2. Thus, it is pleaded that the petitioner had committed cheating upon the Opposite Party No. 2, saying, inter alia, that he was the absolute owner in respect of the disputed land.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the dispute between the parties is completely civil in nature. On the basis of registered deed of sale, the Opposite Party No. 2 became the owner of the disputed land. He mutated his name on the basis of the said deed of sale. He has been paying the land rent in respect of the said property and the same is in his possession. Subsequently, one Sikandar Yadav and others tried to disposes him. The petitioner lodged an application before the Bihar Land Dispute Redressal Authority for appropriate relief. The authority passed an order on 31^st of December, 2014, holding, inter alia, that the dispute between the Opposite Party No. 2 and the said Sikandar Yadav and others is absolutely civil in nature and the parties were advised to file civil suit before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. There was no allegation before the Bihar Land Dispute Redressal Authority that the petitioner committed cheating by selling out a

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31136 of 2016(12) dt.15-07-2024 3/3

¶20

particular piece of land to the Opposite Party No. 2 as well as other different persons. There is absolutely no evidence to the effect that the petitioner sold out the disputed land to some persons other than the Opposite Party No. 2.

¶21

I have already recorded that the name of the Opposite Party No. 2 has been mutated in the Government record of rights. Had there been any claim over the same property by any other person, the land would not have been mutated in his name. The dispute specifically relates to the Opposite Party No. 2 and one Sikandar Yadav and others.

¶22

Considering such aspect of the matter, I am of the considered view that the Opposite Party No. 2 has not been able to make out any case under Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner and order of cognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Banka is illegal and cannot stand.

¶23

For the reasons stated above, the order of cognizance in Complaint Case No. 86 of 2016 dated 4^th of June, 2016 is quashed and set aside.

¶24

The instant Cr. Misc. Case is allowed.

¶25

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶26

uttam/-

¶27

Md. Ozair Alam v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Md. Ozair Alam v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Singh, Vs The State of Bihar

Manish Kumar and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Harbansh Singh and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Gorelal Yadav and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Rita Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjeev Kumar Vs The State of Bihar