Om Prakash, J. - (1.) This application has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the charge sheet being C.S. No. 149 of 2010 dated 4.8.2010 arising out of case crime no. 222 of 2010, case no. 469 of 2010 (State Rajaram and others), under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, P. S. Ali Nagar district Chandauli pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli.Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
(2.) Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that applicant no. 1 is the purchaser of the disputed property. Applicant no. 2 to 6 are the co-sharer and they have sold the disputed property belonging to their share. At this juncture learned counsel also referred to para 5 of the affidavit annexed with the application. It was further argued that opposite party no. 2 has purchased the share of Dularey, who is also one of the co-sharers. It was further argued that it is purely a civil nature dispute but giving cloak of criminality present prosecution has been started. Since applicant no. 2 to 6 are the co-sharers of the disputed property, therefore, essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 467, 468 IPC are not available in the present matter. Referring to the sale deed, it was further argued that until and unless share of the each and every party is divided on the spot, applicant no. 2 to 6 were the owners of their share in the disputed property over every part of the land. It was further argued that investigating officer has submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence. Cognizance taken in the matter is also illegal. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the following case laws : 1. Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2008 AIR(SC) 251. 2. Mohd. Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another,2010 1 JIC 133 (SC).
(3.) Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 argued that the opposite party no. 2 has purchased the disputed property from Dularey in the year 2003. Present sale deed was executed in the year 2004. Opposite party no. 2 after purchasing the disputed property from one Dularey is in possession over the disputed property. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 also referred to annexure no. 5, 6 and 7 to the application and stated that a prima facie case is clearly made out against the applicants. Sale deed in question has been executed to defraud the opposite party no. 2. Essential ingredients to constitute the offences levelled against the applicants are clearly attracted. In support of his submission learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 placed reliance on the following case laws : 1. M. S. Sheriff Vs. State of Madras, 1954 LawSuit(SC) 49. 2. Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam and another Vs. State (Delhi Admn) and another, 2009 4 JT 522. 3. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. NEPC India Ltd., 2006 LawSuit(SC) 488.;