Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J
1. Heard, Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Someshwar Roy, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by learned
C.J.M., Chatra, whereby and whereunder the cognizance has been taken under section 406 and 120B of the IPC in connecting with Complaint Case
No.186 of 2015 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra.
3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this prosecution are that the complainant and the accused Nos.1 and 2 namely Smt. Sumitra Devi and Ashok
Kumar Gupta are gotiya to each other. The further case is that in urgent needs of money, the complainant agreed to sale his land area 0.55 acres
under Mauza Demdem in Khata No.19, Plot No.253 on consideration amount of Rs.84,000/- to the accused No.1Smt Sumitra Devi therein with
condition of total payment to the complainant after execution and admission of sale deed. Further, the complainant, in good faith, has executed the sale
deed in favour of the accused No.1 therein. On 22.12.2014, after execution of sale deed, when the complainant demanded the consideration amount
from the accused No. 1 Smt. Sumitra Devi and accused No.2 Ashok Kumar Gupta therein, they refused to give the money saying that they have
already paid total amount before the execution and admission of sale deed. The only allegation against the petitioner as alleged the complainant is that
the petitioner being Deed Writer after hatching criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons has handed over the original sale deed to the accused
No.1 Smt. Sumitra Devi and accused No.2 Ashok Kumar Gupta therein with intention to cheat him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is a Deed Writer and in the instant case, the complainant has filed for non-payment
of consideration amount. The deed of conveyance has not been challenged. The petitioner being a Deed Writher has no concern with the payment of
consideration amount rather he is concerned with his own fee for drafting the deed, which has already been received. In the impugned order, no
specific reasons have been recorded showing any materials involving the present petitioner in the alleged offences. The accused No.1 Smt. Sumitra
Devi therein is a purchaser of the alleged property from the complainant and accused No.2 Ashok Kumar Gupta is the son of the purchaser(accused
No.1). It is further submitted that the main dispute of the complainant is with accused Nos.1 and 2 therein and not with the present petitioner, who is
arrayed as accused No.3 therein. Therefore, summoning order passed against the present petitioner and further proceeding of this case against the
petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner, as made in the instant Cr.M.P., may be allowed.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner has been dragged in this case only because he is a
Deed Writer of the sale deed and without payment of consideration amount to the complainant by the accused Nos.1 and 2 therein, the present
petitioner has handed over the original copies of the sale deed to the accused No.1 Smt. Sumitra Devi therein. So far the involvement of present
petitioner is concerned, he is neither recipient of the consideration money nor any deed has been executed in his favour and also no role of the
petitioner appears in the case, as regards relief sought by the complainant.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the prayer of petitioner, as prayed
for in the instant Cr.M.P., is allowed.
7. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.186 of 2015 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 30.08.2016 passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra against the present petitioner , is quashed and set aside.
8. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for information and needful.