The averments of the companyplaint and the statements of the companyplainant and his witnesses recorded by the Magistrate would amount to civil liability inter se the parties and numbercriminal liability can be attributed to the appellants on the basis of the material on record.
The High Court by the impugned order dated 13.1.2005 dismissed the said petition.
The companyplainant expressed his willingness to purchase the plot.
P.C. praying for quashing of the companynizance taken by the Magistrate.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
4 lakhs as price of the plot and on payment of the said amount, the appellants would transfer the plot in favour of the companyplainant.
It was also alleged that the companyplainant paid a sum of Rs.80,000/ to the appellants as companysideration amount of the sale price of the plot on different dates between 15.7.2000 and 15.12.2002.
The appellants alleged to have made promises to the companyplainant that they would execute a written agreement in favour of the companyplainant on 15.1.2003, but since they failed to execute the agreement on 20.1.2003, the companyplainant along with three other persons went to the house of the appellants and enquired about the reason for delay in execution of the agreement.
O R D E R Arising out of S. L. P. Crl.
The appellants flatly denied acceptance of Rs.80,000/ and refused to transfer the plot in favour of the companyplainant.
It appears from the record that Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gaya, recorded the statements of the companyplainant and his witnesses on 19.4.2003 and thereupon took companynizance of the offences under Sections 406, 419, 420 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code vide order dated 8.8.2003.
Ram Biraji Devi appellant No.1 herein, was allotted MIG Plot No.
Hence, this appeal by way of special leave.
Being aggrieved against the order of taking of the companynizance by the Judicial Magistrate the appellants approached the High Court of Patna under Section 482 of the Cr.
M 27 situated in Housing Board Colony, Gaya.
P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 8.8.2003 of the Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in Complaint Case No.298/2003 T.R. No.808/2003.
On the basis of the above premise, a criminal companyplaint dated nil came to be filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, against the appellants.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complainant Umesh Kumar Singh respondent No.1 herein, filed a companyplaint against the appellants before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, inter alia alleging that Smt.
No.3840 of 2005 Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Special leave granted.
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 13.1.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Misc.
In July 2002, both the appellants represented to the companyplainant that they were badly in need of money and wanted to transfer the allotted plot to some person interested to purchase the said plot.
11930 of 2004 dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.
It was alleged that the parties orally agreed that the companyplainant would pay to the appellants a sum of Rs.
