Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1381 (PAT)

Anup Lal Modi v. State Of Bihar

2010-06-25

DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Sri Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This petition seeks the quashing of order dated 19.5.1999 by which the petitioners was summoned by Sri K.M. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur for committing offences under Sections 149, 420 and 468 of the Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 165 of 1997. 3. The allegations in the complaint petition were that the complainant had got certain properties in his share through a decree of the Civil Court in a particular suit as detailed in the complaint petition. He was an old person and he did not have any son and his only daughter was residing in the complainants house at Nawada. The complainant was a permanent resident of Village-Nawada, P.S.-Sultanganj, District-Bhagalpur. 4. It is alleged that on 19.9.1996 the petitioners and other accused persons took the complainant to a doctor for getting his eye checked up and allegedly got administered some medicine in his eyes so as to making him completely blind. Thereafter, they obtained some L.T.Is. of the complainant on some plain papers impressing upon him that it was necessary for the doctor to treat him. But ultimately, it turned out that the petitioners had obtained a deed conveying certain properties as per description in the complaint petition which was got registered. 5. It was stated by the complainant that subsequently he came to know about it and obtained the copy of the deed from the registry office and came to know about the criminal acts of the accused persons. 6. The contention was that it is not denied that the complainant put his L.T.Is. on some plain papers. It is further contended that as per rules and practice of registering transfer deed, all the Registrar is empowered to register such a deed. He would make an enquiry of every details of the transfer. On being satisfied that it was being voluntarily done, he will put the details of the identification and other matters on the deed and register it. He would make an enquiry of every details of the transfer. On being satisfied that it was being voluntarily done, he will put the details of the identification and other matters on the deed and register it. The above practice leaves no manner of doubt in it that the complainant was fully aware of the transfer, he was making in favour of the petitioner Anup Lal Modi and his two sons petitioners, namely, Arvind Kumar Chaurasia and Pravin Kumar Chaurasia and it is simply absurd to think that he was duped to put his L.T.Is. on any plain paper. It was contended that the statements made in the complaint petition are patently absurd and inherently improbable. 7. The statements of the complainant appears to this court framed only in order to creating some offence in spite of the fact that he appears voluntarily registering a deed of transfer in respect of some part of the properties as detailed in the complaint petition. The allegations that he was duped and he was blinded after administering certain medicine on that particular day appears to this court patently absurd and inherently improbable. The contention that it was an afterthought on account of some change of heart that the complaint petition was filed, appears weighty. 8. Regard being had to the absurdity of the allegations and its inherent improbability, the order of summoning dated 19.5.1999 is hereby quashed.