N.L. Tibrewal, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. I also perused the order under challenge in this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. Statements of the witnesses recorded by the learned Magistrate were readover.
(2.) From the record of the case, it transpires that at one point of time Shri Chandra Ram Patwari was made an accused and cognizance was taken against him but subsequently, on a petition filed by him before this Court he was heard by the trial court on direction of this Court and the learned trial court, while exonerating him took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Statement of Thakur Dass has been readover before me. From his statement prima facie no case of malafide intention is made out against any of the petitioners. Change in Zamabandi may be a bonafide mistake and in absence of any evidence to show malafides on part of the petitioners, it shall not be proper to drag them in the matter, specially when the matter relates to the year 1985. It also transpires that initially, the land in question was in the Khatedari of Phoole Khan who had sold the same to Ramji Lal On pretext of repurchase, the sale deed was taken back from Rairiji Lal by Handal. Who lateron, mortgaged the land with the Bank and thereafter executed a sale deed in favour of Kareemdeen Rattidan and Deen Mohammad. In these transactions non of the petitioners was a party. Thus, taking into consideration totality of the facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed.
(3.) Consequently, this Misc. Petition is allowed. The order dated 6th August, 1988 taking cognizance against the petitioners is set aside. Record of the case be sent back to the concerned Magistrate. Petition allowed.;