H.C.MISHRA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 5.2.2003 passed by Smt. S. Kumari, learned Juducial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in C -1 Case No. 108 of 1997, whereby the Court below has allowed the O.P. No. 2 to make the pairvi on behalf of the complainant in the said complaint case.
(3.) THE facts of this case lie in a short compass. The complainant Siroman Singh had filed a complaint case against the petitioners, which was registered as C -1 Case No. 108 of 1997, alleging that there was a dispute between the parties for a land, for which, there was a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. It is alleged that there was a meeting between the parties, in which, it was decided that the accused persons shall not pursue the said case under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., and accordingly, the co -cordial relation was developed between them. It is further alleged that the accused persons demanded a loan of Rs. 80,000/ - from the complainant, but at the relevant point of time, the complainant had only Rs. 71,000/ - , which he gave to the accused persons and in lieu thereof, the accused persons also issued two cheques to the complainant for the amount of Rs. 21,000/ - and another cheque of Rs. 50,000/ -. However, before the cheques could be produced for encashment, the complainant received a legal notice from the accused persons, in which, it was stated that the cheques were given for the sale of disputed plot of land to the accused persons. Alleging that the accused persons had deceived the complainant, the present complaint was filed. It appears from the impugned order that prima facie offence was found against the accused persons and upon summons, the accused persons appeared in the case. In the meantime, the original complainant died and the O.P. No. 2, claiming himself to be the grand -son of the complainant, filed an application for being substituted at the place of the complainant, but the said application was objected to by the petitioners, stating that due to death of the complainant, the case was fit to be dismissed. It was also stated that the son of the deceased complainant was alive and accordingly, the O.P. No. 2 (the grandson of the deceased) was not empowered to pursue the case. However, another application was filed by the O.P. No. 2, praying to allow him to pursue the case and ultimately by the impugned order dated 5.2.2003, the Court below allowed the O.P. No. 2, to make pairvi on behalf of the deceased -complainant.;