S.N. Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) This Cr. M.P. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 08.03.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr. Rev. No. 06 of 2015, whereby the learned Court has declined to set aside the order dated 30.04.2015, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in Complaint Petitioner C 166 of 2005.
(3.) The facts of the case in brief is that petitioner through two registered sale deed Nos. 617 and 618 dated 18.03.2015 purchase 11/2 decimals of land from one Sukra Bhuiyan and Basant Bhuiyan of Sisai Road. On 15.06.2005, the accused Mahendra Ram demanded the sale deeds from the petitioner to see it and after receipt of the same, he fled away and did not return it to the petitioner. The petitioner repeatedly requested Mahednra Ram to return the sale deeds but he denied to return the same. Ultimately, the petitioner lodged complaint before the Gumla Police Station. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the said Mahendra Ram had executed sale deeds of the aforesaid land in favour of Sakra Bhuiyan and Basant Bhuiyan on 01.04.2005. After some days, when the petitioner was coming from the office of Circle Officer, the said Mahendra Ram and Dubraj Bhuiyan came on a motorcycle and on the point of gun asked him to sign on a blank paper saying that he had received a sum of Rs. One lakh. The petitioner due to fear wrote the said fact and put his signature on it. It is further submitted that on the basis of complaint, same was registered and trial proceeded. The evidence was also closed on 26.06.2013. The complainant filed a petition before the learned Trial Court to recall the witness, which was allowed and he was directed to produce his witness within next three dates on the condition of payment of cost to the accused. The petitioner deposited the cost with the accused persons and asked the witnesses to depose before the trial Court but they did not turn up on one pretext or the other and ultimately, they could not be examined. The complainant was under impression that he will depose after examination of his two witnesses but due to lackadaisical attitude, they could not be examined and hence, the evidence on behalf of the complainant again closed on 26.03.2015. Thereafter, the complainant again filed a petition for recalling the closure order of evidence on 22.04.2015 but this time, learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, rejected the petition of complainant.;