- (1.) BOTH these applications arise out of the same case and as such, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No. 2.
(3.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2013, passed by Sri Partho Sarathi Ghosh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in Complaint Case No. 2734 of 2012, whereby upon an inquiry in the complaint case, the prima facie offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code have been found against the petitioners. In Cr.M.P. No. 748 of 2013, the petitioner is the Allahabad Bank (herein after referred to as the 'Bank'), whereas the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 822 of 2013 is the Chief Manager of the Bank, who is also the Authorized Officer of the Bank. Complaint Case No. 2734 of 2012 was filed by the complainant O.P. No. 2 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, wherein it is alleged that a 'Notice of Sale' was dishonestly, fraudulently and with intention to cheat, was published by the Bank in the Prabhat Khabar daily news paper, for the sale of the property in dispute, which comprised 3 acres of land situated in Mouza Maheshpur, in the District of Dhanbad. The complainant relying upon the said notice, purchased the said property and full and final payment of Rs.6,55,000/ - was made by the complainant to the accused persons. The accused No. 1, the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 822 of 2013, issued the sale certificate in favour of the complainant and thereafter he executed a registered sale deed in favour of the complainant vide Sale Deed No. 6419 dated 6.5.2011. After obtaining the sale deed, when the complainant went to take physical possession over the purchased property, he could get the possession only over 2.37 acres of land, as the rest .63 acres of land had already been sold to other persons, who were in possession upon it. Stating that it was incumbent upon the Bank and its official to sell the property only after taking the physical possession over the property and also stating that only with the fraudulent intention the 'Notice of Sale' was published without taking physical possession over the property in dispute, the complainant O.P. No. 2 filed the complaint petition, further stating that in spite of making several requests to the accused persons to refund the amount, the amount was not refunded to him. The complainant supported his case in his statement recorded on solemn affirmation and it also appears that some witnesses were also examined in the inquiry stage, on the basis of which, the Court below has found sufficient materials against the accused persons for putting them to trial, as prima facie offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code were made out against them.;