Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17290 of 2011 ====================================================== Sri Bhagwan Das, son of Sri Deo Raj Thakur, resident of Village- Pipara Bangla, P.S. + District-Arwal, at present resident of Mohalla-Sultanpur Danapur, P.S. Danapur, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sri Mangal Prasad, son of Ramchandra Sao, resident of Village- Pipara Bangla, P.S. Arwal, District- Arwal. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiva Shankar Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party No.2:Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 5 27-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.1.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.472 of 2010 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner under [STATUTE] . 3. From the record it appears that opposite party no.2 filed a complainant case stating therein that the complainant had purchased the land appertaining to Khata No.1240/690 and 1241/691, area 13¼ decimals, Khata No. 245/287, Plot No.1240/690, area 1 ¼ decimals and Plot Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17290 of 2011 (5) dt.27-11-2012 2 No.1241/691, area 11 ½ decimals of land through registered sale deed dated 31.8.1992 and 25.3.1994 from one Raghvendra Narayan Ojha and Smt. Bindeshwari Devi. Similarly the mother of the complainant had purchased lands from Arbind Ojha vide Khata No. 245/287, Plot No.1240/690, area 2 ½ decimals, Plot No.1241/691, area 101¼ decimals and Khata No.287, Plot No.690, area 11¼ decimals and 691, area 111½ decimals on 16.11.1992 and 27.7.1992. It has been alleged that after purchase of the land in the year 1992 mutation was done in favour of the complainant and his mother and accordingly in some part of the land the complainant had constructed the house. It has further been alleged that the name of the petitioner was recorded in the survey Khatiyan. It also appears from the complaint petition that the complainant could know about purchase of the land by the petitioner whereupon opposite party could obtain copy of the registered document dated 18.5.2010. It has further been alleged that the petitioner had purchased the land by committing a fraud and cheating. It has further been alleged that there was proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and order was passed in the favour of the petitioner. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17290 of 2011 (5) dt.27-11-2012 3 4. On the basis of the solemn affirmation and statement of the witnesses, the court below took cognizance against the petitioner for offences under [STATUTE] . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the complaint petition it appears that basically it is a civil dispute as the petitioner had purchased the land from the heirs of Jangi Kanu and Fekan Kanu. Jangi Kanu and Fekan Kanu were the original land holders that has been recorded in the Khatiyan and from the heirs of original land holder petitioner purchased the land. So much so a civil suit has been filed by the petitioner bearing T.S. No.41 of 2011 where relief has been sought for declaration of his title and in the event of dispossession its restoration. Copy of the plaint has been annexed as Anenxure-3 to this petition where genealogical table has been mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is purely a civil dispute and in a case of purely a civil dispute the order of cognizance will be an abuse of the process of the court. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits if from narration of facts mentioned in the complaint petition makes out civil wrong and criminal offence than in that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17290 of 2011 (5) dt.27-11-2012 4 circumstance both will run together. He has further submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance the document that has been brought by the petitioner cannot be looked into. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and others, reported in A.I.R. 2011 SC 20 paragraph-45. 7. Having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties there is no quarrel on the proposition that when the fact mentioned in the complaint petition constitute civil wrong as well as criminal offence both will run together but from the facts in the complaint petition emerges only civil case in that circumstances the court will interfere at the initial stage. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 has held that if allegation in the complaint, taken at their face value, disclose a criminal offence, complaint cannot be quashed merely because it relates to a private dispute or commercial transaction but from the facts makes out only civil case, the Court will be justified in interfering with the order of cognizance. On Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17290 of 2011 (5) dt.27-11-2012 5 reading of complaint, it is basically a civil dispute relating to the land and in that circumstance the court in exercise of inherent power is inclined to interfere with order of cognizance as reasons are hereunder. In the present case there is no allegation of impersonation but from the complaint petition and the document brought on record itself shows that the petitioner had purchased the land from heirs of original land holder whereas opposite party no.2 had purchased the land from another person and for that a title suit has already been filed by the petitioner and the same is pending.

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.