Judgment:
ORDER
N.N. Tiwari, J.
1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20th August, 2004, whereby cognizance has been taken of the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 60 of 2003.
2. A complaint was lodged alleging that the accused persons had executed and registered a sale deed, bearing No. 354 of 1998, in favour of the complainant, purportedly transferring land of Plot No. 998, Khata No. 113, measuring on area 0.03 acre and Plot No. 999. Khata No. 140, measuring on area 0.02 acre of village Chandwa, P.S. Chandwa, District Latehar for consideration money of Rs. 30,000/- but when the complainant applied for mutation before the revenue authority, it was refused on the ground that the vendor's name was not mutated and his name did not find recorded in the Revenue Register-II. It has been alleged that the accused suppressed the said fact and induced the complainant to purchase the land, knowing fully well that the mutation of the land was not in his name and has committed the said penal offence.
3. Learned Court below on the said allegation and on the basis of solemn affirmation and the statement of the witnesses took cognizance of the said offences against the petitioner, which has been challenged in this petition.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is no denial that the accused-petitioner had executed and registered the sale-deed of the land, which was purchased by him by virtue of a registered sale-deed and over which he had valid right, title and interest. It has been stated that since the vendor himself had purchased the land in the recent past, he could not get an opportunity to get his name mutated In the office of the revenue authority. The complainant-purchaser was quite aware of the fact and knowing fully well that the petitioner has purchased the land by virtue of a registered sale-deed recently had purchased the land., in question, by virtue of the registered sale-deed duly executed on 10th March, 1998. In so far as the acquisition of title is concerned, there is no allegation of any defect in title or any misrepresentation to that regard by the petitioner. Only allegation is that the revenue authority refused to mutate the petitioner's name on the basis of the registered sale- deed executed in favour of the complainant. It has been submitted that for any such order passed by the revenue authority, the vendor-petitioner cannot be held to be liable for any penal offence. The order passed by the revenue authority is also appealable and revisable, but the complainant did not prefer any appeal or revision and on the contrary has lodged the said frivolous complaint against the petitioner.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 as also learned A.P.P. opposed the petition and submitted that the complainant's name was not mutated, but the said fact was not disclosed to the complainant-purchaser and she was induced to purchase the land on the assurance that there is no defect in title and possession. Since mutation of the complainant's name has been refused, causing him loss and prejudice, he is liable for the criminal prosecution and legal consequence under the said penal sections. Learned trial Court has, thus, rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences. There is no illegality in the impugned order.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances of the case as also materials appearing on record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has sold the land, in question, in favour of the complainant by virtue of a registered sale-deed transferring her right, title and interest in favour of the complainant. There is no allegation that there was any defect in the petitioner's right, title and interest over the land. Granting or refusing mutation has no effect in the passing of right-title and interest. The order refusing mutation is also appealable and revisable. However, refusal of mutation by the concerned authorities cannot be a ground for prosecution against the vendor of the properties, it there is no defect to right, title and interest on the land, transferred to the purchaser. As aforesaid, there is no allegation in the entire complaint that the petitioner has got no right title over the land:
7. I, therefore, find no ground for criminal prosecution against the petitioner on the allegations made in the complaint. Learned Magistrate, without considering and appreciating the said legal position, has erroneously passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the aforesaid penal offences. The said order cannot sustain in law and the same is, hereby, quashed. The entire criminal proceeding based on the said complaint is futile and unsustainable and the same is also quashed.
8. This petition is allowed.