1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding pending against him including the order dated 17-11-2008 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh took cognizance of the offence under Sections 420/467/468/406/120B, Indian Penal Code in Katkamsandi (Pelawall) P.S. Case No.99 of 2007 corresponding to G.R.No.117 of 2007 (T.R.No.1501 of 2010) now pending before the Court Sri. R.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.

2. A Complainant case No.134 of 2007 was filed by the complainant-opposite party No.2 against the petitioner and three others namely Damyanti Devi, Champa Devi and Sarju Pathak stating that accused Damyanti Devi and her gotni Champa Devi were known to the complainant and the members of his family since long. In the year 2002 Damyanti Devi and her gotni Champa Devi both had executed registered sale deed in favour of father and mother of the complainant for certain piece of land against valuable consideration and thereafter the land was transferred by putting the vendee in physical possession of the land and thereby Damyanti Devi and Champa Devi had gained the confidence of the complainant and the members of his family. The complainant had purchased some plots in khata No.25 in the past also. The complainant further narrated that after sometime Damyanti Devi approached him and the members of his family expressing her intention to transfer three plots measuring total area of 1.54 acres at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per Kama which was accepted by the complainant and Damyanti Devi executed an agreement for sale in favour of the complainant on 16-12-2006 after accepting a cash of Rs.30,000/- for three plots at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per Katha. In the said agreement to sale Damyanti Devi had put her left thumb impression wherein the accused Sarju Pathak stood as witness who had put his thumb impression. It was agreed in the agreement to sale that subject to payment of the balance amount Damyanti Devi would transfer the lands in favour of the complainant. It was alleged that she denied to abide by the terms of agreement inspite of his constant approach by offering the balance amount to Damyanti Devi for executing an absolute sale deed. In the meantime, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the petitioner Subhash Pathak being the daughters son of Champa Devi influenced Damyanti Devi as such the latter refused to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant inspite of the fact that she had already accepted Rs.30,000/- as advance. The complainant further gathered that soon thereafter Damyanti Devi transferred some piece of lands by virtue of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner Subhash Pathak on 22-1-2007 and thereby the complainant was defrauded by the accused persons. The complaint was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Katkamsandi Police Station for registering the case and pursuant to that Katkam-sandi (Pelawall) P.S. Case No.99 of 2007 was registered. The Investigating Officer submitted final form exonerating the criminal liability of the petitioner and others whereupon notice was issued to which the complainant filed objection petition which was treated as complaint and cognizance of the offence under Sections 420/467/468/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the accused Champa Devi, Subhash Pathak (petitioner herein) and Suraj Pathak by disclosing that Damyanti Devi had since died.

3. Complainant-opposite party No.2 entered appearance on receipt of the notice and filed counter affidavit.

4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no allegation against the petitioner with respect to breach of trust since he never came in the picture with respect to alleged agreement executed by Damyanti Devi in favour of the complainant. Agreement to sale was never registered and it would be evident from the said instrument that the alleged thumb impression of Damyanti Devi was without endorsement by any recognized person and according to the petitioner, it was manufactured by obtaining signature of unknown and the same was converted into forged agreement. It would be relevant to mention, Mr. Nilesh Kumar added that Damyanti Devi and Champa Devi both were illiterate ladies, aged about 90 years having no understanding of any agreement whatsoever. It was nowhere mentioned as to in whose presence Damyanti Devi executed the agreement to sale in respect of certain land and that the petitioner was not a party in any manner of the alleged agreement, nor the petitioner had concern with Sarju Pathak before transfer of the land in his favour by Damyanti Devi. The petitioner had no knowledge at all with respect to any kind of agreement to sale whatsoever executed in the year 2006 by Damyanti Devi in favour of any person but he has been maliciously implicated in the instant case by putting undue pressure who was the bona fide purchaser of the lands against valuable consideration. It is settled law that no valuable right is accrued to a person on the basis of the agreement to sale and if at all any right is on the basis of an agreement to sale and if at all any dispute arose, it would be in the nature of civil dispute and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence would be attracted against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sections 426/467 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that the Apex Court propounded in the case of Md. Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another that when the disputes were essentially Civil in nature the criminal Court should cheque the abuse of the process of the Court and ensure that criminal proceedings must not be misused for settling scores or pressurizing the parties to settle civil disputes. The purchaser, who had purchased the disputed land, was itself a victim. The petitioner in the instant case was the purchaser who purchased the land under bona fide belief and if the land was found to be disputed, he could not have been prosecuted for the offence of cheating because element of cheating or fraud were not found. In the given facts and circumstances and relying on the decision aforesaid reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 the complainant-opposite party No.2 had recourse under the statute to settle his grievance with the person who allegedly executed an agreement to sale in his favour but as per the knowledge to the petitioner, no such agreement was ever executed by Damyanti Devi and therefore, continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner would tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court which is liable to be quashed.

5. On the other hand Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel substantiating the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submitted that petitioner Subhash Pathak was the grandson of the accused Nos.1 and 2 whereas, the accused No.4 was the son-in-law of the accused No.2 and similarly accused No.1, who died subsequently, was sister-in-law (gotni) of the accused No.2 of the complainant. Mr. Sinha failed to explain as to how the petitioner could be the grand son of two different women and one of them, who was the vendor of the land, died. Damyanti Devi was issueless and the petitioner was keeping an eye on her property. The learned counsel asserted that when the petitioner came to know that Damyanti Devi was inclined to transfer part of her land to the family of the petitioner and in this connection she had executed an agreement to sale for the land in question, the petitioner herein filed a case against the complainant-opposite party No.2 herein on obtaining thumb impressions of Damyanti Devi and Champa Devi on the blank paper which was converted into FIR being Katkamsandi (Pelawal) P.S. Case No.24 of 2007 on 21-1-2007 under Sections 467/468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code against the O.P.No.2 herein and thereafter got a registered sale deed executed in his favour by Damyanti Devi in respect to her lands though for the same pieces of land she had already entered into an agreement to sale with the complainant-opposite party No.2 by acceptance an advance on 16-12-2006. During course of investigation Damyanti Devi had denied having instituted any case against the complainant-opposite party No.2 rather she explained that the petitioner had obtained her thumb impression which was converted into FIR, and therefore the I.O. submitted final form exonerating the criminal liability of the complainant-opposite party No.2 herein which was accepted by the CJM Hazaribagh.

6. Heard the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and argument advanced on behalf of the parties I find that the Apex Court in Md. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar and another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 : 2010 AIR SCW 405 observed:

This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal Courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil dispute. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes.

8. The facts are crystal clear from the pleading that at the first instance Damyanti Devi had executed an agreement to sale with respect to certain properties in favour of the complainant-opposite party No.2 and in lieu of that she had accepted Rs.30,000/- as advance but later on with respect to same lands, she executed registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner against consideration and died after sometime. The allegation against the petitioner was of playing fraud with the complainant who got a sale deed registered in his favour by Damyanti Devi and thereby the O.P.No.2 was deprived. The petitioner had challenged the genuinity of the agreement to sale alleged to be executed by Damyanti Devi which could be challenged in the Civil Court. In the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the firm view that civil dispute is made out between the parties which can be settled and adjudicated by the Court competent jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances I do not find that any of the offences alleged under Sections 420/467/468/406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. The registered sale deed executed by Damyanti Devi in favour of the petitioner has not been denied and therefore, it can safely be said that the petitioner did not play fraud or did any kind of cheating or did commit any forgery of valuable security so as to attract the offences alleged against him.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed and the criminal prosecution of the petitioner including the order dated 17-11-2008 by which cognizance of the offence was taken against him in Katkamsandi (Pelawall) P.S. Case No.99 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No.1227 of 2007 is set aside.

Petition allowed.