- (1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially this application was filed for quashing of the first information report. Subsequently, after completion of the investigation, when the charge sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 09/11/2011, which has been challenged in this interlocutory application. Prayed made in the interlocutory application is hereby allowed. Let this interlocutory application form part of this application. I.A. No. 858 of 2013 stands disposed of. Cr. M.P. No. 957 of 2011
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. Earlier this application was filed for quashing of the first information report of Chandil P.S. Case No. 120 of 2010 (G.R. No. 789/2010), instituted under Sections 420, 201, 120 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. Subsequently, by way of interlocutory application, the order dated 09/11/2011, under which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 201/120 B of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner on submission of the charge sheet, has been challenged. The case of the prosecution is that a piece of land bearing Plot Nos. 574, 575, 576, 577, 571, 572, 573 appertaining to Khata No. 31 situated at Mauza Aasanbani, Thana No. 325, had been acquired by the State Government for Swarnrekha Multi Purpose Project, but this petitioner Kanti Mohanty Rohini successor in interest of the land holders, whose land had earlier been acquired, sold the land to one Rahat Sayeed vide sale deed dated 18/06/2007 and, thereby, both, in connivance with each other sold and purchased the land without disclosing it in the sale deed that the land had already been acquired by the Government.
(3.) MR . Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accepting the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner to be true, the petitioner cannot be said to have defrauded or cheated the State Government and, as such, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as ingredients for constituting offence under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code never gets attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In support of his submission he has referred to a decision rendered in a case of "Mohammed Ibrahim and Others versus State of Bihar and Another, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751".;