Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31378 of 2010 (3) dt.03-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.31378 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Sunil Kumar Agrawal, S/O-Sri Kapurchandra Agrawal, resident of village + P.S.-Bhagwanpur, District-Kaimur at Bhabua. 2. Shriniwash Pandey, S/O-Late Ram Bhawan Pandey resident of village Tendua, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District-Kaimur at Bhabua. 3. Om Prakash Agrawal, S/O-Sri Kapurchandra Agrawal resident of village Bhabua Ward No. 9, (Near Ward No. 18) P.S.-Bhabhua, District- Kaimur at Bhabua .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Santosh Prasad Jaiswal, S/O-Sri Rajbansh Sah, resident of village- Basanpur, P.S.-Bhagwanpur, District-Kaimur at Bhabua .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 3 03-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission and, in my view, this petition can be disposed of on admission stage itself. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 10.06.2010 passed by Sri A.K. Upadhayay, Judicial Magistrate, Bhabua in Complaint Case No. 218 of 2008 Trial No. 1869 of 2010 as well as entire criminal proceeding of the aforesaid case. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that Opposite Party No. 2 filed complaint case bearing Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31378 of 2010 (3) dt.03-07-2012 Complaint Case No. 218 of 2008 against the petitioners and one other inter alia alleging therein that lands of Khata Nos. 25 and 26 corresponding to Plots No. 2044, 2038 and 2043 area 50 decimal were purchased lands of grand father of Opposite Party No. 2. It is further alleged that Opposite Party No. 2 separated from his parents in the year 1994 and he got lands of Khata No. 26 corresponding to Plot No. 2043 area 16 decimal in his share and came in possession since 1994. It is further alleged that in the year 2007, partition by metes and bounds took place between him and his brothers as well as father through Permanent Lok Adalat vide Title Suit No. 636 of 2007 and again he got the aforesaid land in his share. It is also alleged that on 25.02.2008, petitioners and other accused came at his land and petitioner no. 1 disclosed that he had already got executed an agreement for sale in respect of the aforesaid lands from the father of Opposite Party No. 2. In the meantime, father of Opposite Party No. 2 came there and when Opposite Party No. 2 enquired from him about the above stated agreement for sale, the father of Opposite Party No. 2 denied the execution of aforesaid agreement for sale by him. The Opposite Party No. 2 alleged in the complaint petition that petitioners and other accused got executed the aforesaid forged agreement for sale by impersonating his father. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31378 of 2010 (3) dt.03-07-2012 The aforesaid complaint case was enquired by the court and after enquiry the lower court found prima facie case under [STATUTE] against the petitioners and other accused vide impugned order dated 10.06.2010. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as a matter of fact, the father of Opposite Party No. 2 executed an agreement for sale in favour of petitioner no.1 on 08.09.1997 much prior to filing of the present complaint case. It is further contended by him that the father of Opposite Party No. 2 filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 334 of 1998 against the petitioners and one Satyanarayan Ram on similar facts but the aforesaid complaint case was dismissed and not only this but also the father of Opposite Party No. 2 filed Title Suit No. 166 of 1998 for cancellation of the above stated agreement for sale whereas petitioner no. 1 filed Title Suit No. 22 of 2000 for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement for sale and both the above stated title suits were heard analogously and the Title Suit No. 166 of 1998 filed by father of Opposite Party No. 2 was dismissed whereas Title Suit No. 22 of 2000 filed by petitioner no. 1 was decreed. It is further contended by him that again, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed the present case on the basis of similar Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31378 of 2010 (3) dt.03-07-2012 facts which is nothing but only an abuse of process of the court. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 supported the impugned order submitting that it is specific case of the Opposite Party No. 2 that petitioners and other accused got executed forged agreement for sale and the aforesaid assertion is a question of fact which can only be decided in course of trial. Having heard the contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the record. Annexure-3 to this petition reveals that father of Opposite Party No. 2 filed Title Suit No. 166 of 1998 for cancellation of agreement for sale dated 08.09.1997 and the aforesaid suit was dismissed by learned Sub Judge-VIII, Bhabua. In the present complaint case, the Opposite Party No. 2 has specifically stated that petitioners got executed the aforesaid deed by impersonating the father of Opposite Party No. 2 but in my view, the aforesaid issue has already been settled by the competent civil court and the criminal court has got no jurisdiction to decide the genuineness of the deed and, therefore, I do agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the continuation of prosecution of the petitioners is nothing but only an abuse of process of the Court. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this quashing Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31378 of 2010 (3) dt.03-07-2012 petition is allowed on admission stage itself and accordingly, the order

Applicable IPC Section: 417

Statute Text:
Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating. Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.