Tripurari Prasad Singh And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29534 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -309 Year- 2005 Thana -MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMUNGER ===========================================================

1. Tripurari Prasad Singh Son of Late Uchit Narain Singh @ Udit Narayand Singh

2. Maya Devi Wife of Tripurari Prasad Singh Both resident of Mohalla- Lallu Pokhar, P.S.- Kasim Bazar in the town and district of Munger .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Kumari Renu Sinha Wife of Manoj Kumar resident of Mohalla- Belan Bazar, P.S.- Kasim Bazar in the town and District- Munger .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashutosh Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-08-2017 The petitioners have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 25.3.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Munger in Complaint Case No.309 of 2005 whereby petition for discharge was rejected by the said Court.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the accused petitioner no.1 representing himself as owner executed sale deed with respect to the said house in paying consideration money of Rs.2,75,000/-. Later on this fact came to the knowledge of the complainant that he was not the owner rather he was a tenant.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29534 of 2014 dt.01-08-2017 2/2 petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 has executed the sale deed with respect to a house situated in khas mahal land though it was settled in favour of another person but later on his name is recorded and the complainant has also filed title suit so this case is predominately of civil nature whereas the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that he cheated the complainant representing himself as owner of the house.

4. Considering rival submission of both sides and on perusal of material on record the charges appear not groundless against the petitioner, so this application stands dismissed. (Arun Kumar, J) N.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 29-08-2017 Transmission Date 29-08-2017