RAKESH RANJAN PRASAD, J. - (1.) SINCE both the matters arising out of the same case, they were taken for hearing together. Cr. Rev. No. 875 of 2009 This revision application is directed against the order dated 30.7.2009 passed in Complaint Case bearing C/1 case No. 1108 of 2007 by the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder learned Magistrate while rejecting the application filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge from the accusation punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code held that there has been sufficient material to frame charge under Sections 420, 120B, 109/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Cr.Misc. petition is directed against the order dated 7.12.2007 whereby and whereunder learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 120B, 109/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
(2.) IT appears that a complaint was lodged before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for commission of the offence under Sections 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. That complaint was sent before the concerned police station for institution and investigation of the case, upon which Mango (Olidih) P.S. case No. 103 of 2007 was registered under Sections 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon investigation, the case was found as that of civil dispute and hence, final form was submitted which was accepted by the court. Thereupon, a protest petition was filed which was treated as a complaint and was numbered as C/1 case No. 1108 of 2007. The case which has been made out in the complaint is that Yuvraj Grih Nirman Swablambi Sahkari Samity Limited is a registered society primary object of which was to acquire land on purchase or otherwise and to construct flats over it and to allot the same to its members to which petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the honorary Secretary and Chairman respectively, who after acquiring the land constructed several flats over it and took Rs. 3000/ - from each of the flat purchasers as membership fees. At the same time, they represented to them that the apartment will have its lawn, children park, internal road, fire hydrant point, parking area, shopping area and each of the block will have floor lift and ground lift. Apart from that, they also promised to abide by the rules and regulations of the Society and will get the deed of transfer registered. The accused persons on such inducement offered to sell the flats to the members. The members purchased the flats. On possession being given to them, they occupied the flats but the petitioners never provided the facilities as had been promised.. It has been alleged that in stead of providing floor lift and general life in each block, only general lift was provided whereas no provision of lawn, children park, internal road etc. was made and that instead of constructing G+5 apartment, the accused persons in violation of the plan, constructed G+6 and they even put the water tank at the top of the floor exposing the occupants to danger to their lives.
(3.) FURTHER it has been alleged that at the time of purchase, the petitioners had promised to get the transfer deed registered from their own cost but now they are asking extra money for it.;