Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) Both the writ applications arose from the same impugned order, thus, are heard together and disposed of by this order.
(2.) In these writ applications, petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.04.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi in Jagarnathpur P.S. case No. 1909/2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 3162/2014, whereby and where under he took cognizance of the offences under Ss. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
(3.) It appears that respondent No. 2 filed a written report before the Officer -in -Charge, Jagarnathpur Police Station, alleging therein that he came to know that the petitioner (Girish Chandra Verma) was desirous to sale his share in the property pertaining to House No. 42, Tagore Town, Allahabad, U.P. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 approached Girish Chandra Verma at Delhi and negotiated with him for purchasing the aforesaid property. It is alleged that Girish Chandra Verma agreed to sale 390 Sq. Yards of lands falling in his share, at the rate of Rs. 18,000/ - per square yard. Thus, total value of the property fixed at Rs. 70,20,000/ -. It is stated that after the above negotiation, the informant gave Rs. 7,00,000/ - to Girisih Chandra Verma as earnest money. It is then alleged that in the month of June, 2011 Girish Chandra Verma informed respondent No. 2 that his brother Rabish Chandra Verma (petitioner of W.P. Cr. 432/2015) was also desirous to sale his share in the above property and if respondent No. 2 is desirous to purchase his share, then he should talk to Rabish Chandra Verma. Thereafter, three family members of respondent No. 2 talked to Rabish Chandra Verma and his wife Sushma Verma for purchasing their share in House No. 42, Tagore Town, Allahabad. It is alleged that petitioner -Rabish Chandra Verma also agreed to sale his share to respondent No. 2 at the same rate i.e. Rs. 18,000/ - per square yard. It is further alleged that thereafter, an unregistered written agreement entered in between the parties on 12.07.2011 and respondent No. 2 paid Rs. 9,00,000/ - to Rabish Chandra Verma as earnest money. It is further alleged that thereafter, on several occasions, as demanded by the petitioners, respondent No. 2 paid different amounts to the petitioners. It is then alleged that thereafter, respondent No. 2 made several request for executing the sale deed, but on each occasion, petitioners on one pretext or other took time for executing the sale deed. However, they used to take different amounts from respondent No. 2 during that period. Ultimately, in the month of February, 2014 at the instance of respondent No. 2, both the petitioners executed a supplementary agreement of sale, wherein petitioners assured respondent No. 2 that they will execute the sale deed before 31.05.2014 and if they will not execute the same by that time, then they will put the respondent No. 2 in possession of the property, as they have already taken a sum of Rs. 79,50,000/ - from the respondent No. 2. It is stated that the aforesaid agreement registered before the Notary Public on 13.02.2014. It is further alleged in the written report that when in the month of May, 2014, petitioners not executed the sale deed, as promised in the supplementary agreement, respondent No. 2 along with others went to the house of petitioners situated at 42 Tagore Town, Allahabad, U.P. where they found that the the said house was locked and nobody was residing in that house. Therefore, respondent No. 2 met with one Uday Bir Singh, who told that petitioners are residing at Delhi. Later on, respondent No. 2 came to know that petitioner Girish Chandra Verma had sold his share to the mother and wife of Uday Bir Singh on 26.09.2013 by a registered sale deed, whereas petitioner Rabish Chandra Verma executed a registered deed of agreement for sale in favour of aforesaid two ladies. It is stated that thereafter, respondent No. 2 asked the petitioners to explain as to why they entered into a supplementary agreement, when they have already sold the property to the mother and wife of one Uday Bir Singh. Whereupon petitioner Girish Chandra Verma had assured him that they will execute sale deed in favour of Respondent No. 2. It is stated that such assurances were given by the petitioners through SMS on the mobile phone of respondent No. 2 while he was posted at Ranchi. It is further alleged that suddenly, Rabish Chandra Verma deposited Rs. 18,00,000/ - in the account of respondent's wife situated at Ranchi and disclosed that he will not sale the aforesaid property to the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the present case filed.;