- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No.2.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 419 of 1995 by Sri O. P. Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi , whereby, the charge had been framed against the petitioner and the other co-accused for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been made accused in Complaint Case No. 419 of 1995 filed by the opposite party No. 2 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, wherein it is alleged that there was an agreement between the deceased mother of the complainant and the petitioner as also the other co-accused for sale of 5 & 1/2 Kathas of land in Holding No. 936/D/1 of Ward No.20 corresponding to Sub-Plot No.1147/B/1 situated in village Lalpur in the District of Ranchi, according to which, the said land was agreed to be sold for a consideration amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the mother of the complainant by the petitioner. The consideration amount was paid to the accused persons, but the execution of sale deed was not made. It appears from the complaint petition itself that the mother of the complainant was put in physical possession of land in question and the complainant is continuing in possession over the property. It is, however, stated that the complainant whenever contacted the petitioner, who used to reside at Kolkata, the execution of sale deed was always deferred on one pretext or the other. It also finds mentioned in the complaint petition that a sale deed was prepared and signed, but due to delay made by the accused persons, the sale deed could not be registered. In course of time, the mother of the complainant died and the property came in possession of the father of the complainant and the complainant. They again requested to the petitioner for execution of the sale deed, but the petitioner did not execute the sale deed, but executed the power of attorney in favour of the father of the complainant and the complainant with an assurance that the sale deed would be executed later. Subsequently, the father of the complainant also died, and the request was again made to the petitioner by the complainant and again, a power of attorney was executed in favour of the complainant. The complaint petition has been filed complaining that the sale deed has not been executed in favour of the complainant in spite of repeated requests. When the case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is always willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant and accordingly, learned counsel for the complainant was asked by the Court to give a date, on which, the petitioner would come to Ranchi and execute the sale deed. On that pretext, time was being taken by the parties for several dates and today, learned counsel for the complainant informed this Court that he has no instructions in this regard from his client.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the facts of this case, this case is clearly of civil nature and accordingly, the prosecution of the petitioner in a criminal case is absolutely illegal and is a misuse of the process of Court. LEARNED counsel, accordingly, submitted that the criminal proceeding against the petitioner be quashed. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the opposite Party No. 2, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer and have submitted that on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on S.A., and the statements of the witnesses examined by the complainant in the enquiry stage, the offence is clearly made out against the petitioner and the same cannot be quashed at this stage.;