Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.4578 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Moulvi Anisur Rahman S/O Haji Abdul Hannan, resident of Village- Danipur, P.S. -Rautra, District -Katihar 2. Md. Tauhid Alam S/O Late Habibur Rahman, resident of Village- Danipur, P.S. -Rautra, District –Katihar. 3. Md. Ayub Ansari S/O Late Khalilur Ram, resident of Village- Danipur, P.S. -Rautra, District -Katihar 4. Md. Nazir Ansari S/O Late Abdul Momin, resident of Village- Danipur, P.S. -Rautra, District -Katihar 5. Md. Mojibur Rahman S/O Moulvi Anisur Rahman, resident of Village- Danipur, P.S. -Rautra, District -Katihar 6. Abdul Rahman S/O Late Mazhar Ali, resident of Village- Danipur, P.S. -Rautra, District –Katihar 7. Samsher Alam son of Habibur Rahman, resident of Village- Rautra, PS- Rautara, District -Katihar 8. Md. Jamil Akhtar, son of Khalilur Rahman, resident of Village- Rautra, PS- Rautara, District -Katihar 9. Md. Jainul Ansari son of Late Abdul Momin, resident of Village- Rautra, PS- Rautara, District –Katihar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar and Anr. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Nadim Saraj and Satish Kr. Sinha, Advs. For the State : Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 01-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State but no one appears on behalf of the O.P. No. 2. Even after several days the Court waited for his appearance but he was absent though the case was passed over on different dates. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 22.9.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 689/2010 by which the court below has taken cognizance for offences under Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4578 of 2011 (4) dt.01-11-2012 2/2 [STATUTE] . In this case, the allegation has been made that petitioners have sold the landed property which falls in share of the complainant and his sisters. In the complaint petition it has been alleged that on family arrangement and partition the land was fallen in the share of the complainant but maliciously he sold the property of the complainant, O.P. No. 2. From the record it appears that it is primarily a civil dispute having no criminal element. Accordingly in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2006 (6) SCC 736 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a case of pure civil dispute having no element of the criminal act, the court should interfere with the matter and quash the order of cognizance. Having considered the facts mentioned in the complaint petition and the argument of the petitioner, this Court feels inclined to interfere with the order of cognizance and accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 22.9.2010 is quashed and this petition is allowed. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.