Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18997 of 2012 =================================================== 1. Smt. Usha Tiwary W/o Anil Kumar Tiwary Resident of Village- Sahit Tajpur, P.S.- Vidyapatinagar, District- Samastipur. 2. Anil Kumar Tiwary S/o Late Suresh Chandra Tiwary Resident of Village- Sahit Tajpur, P.S.- Vidyapatinagar, District- Samastipur. 3. Mostt. Anuradha Tiwary @ Radha Tiwary W/o Late Sidhnath Tiwary Resident of Village- Sahit Tajpur, P.S.- Vidyapatinagar, District- Samastipur. 4. Mohd. Jahangir Ahmad, S/o Muslim Resident of Village- Sahit Tajpur, P.S.- Vidyapatinagar, District- Samastipur. 5. Sasant Kumar S/o Late Maheshwar Prasad Chaurasia Resident of Village- Sahit Tajpur, P.S.- Vidyapatinagar, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Smt. Gayatri Tiwary, W/o Sri Mrinalkant Tiwary, R/o Village-Sahit, Tajpur, P.S.-Vidyapatinagar, Dist.- Samastipur. .... .... Opposite Party/s =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 04. 22.11.2012 The Petitioners seek quashing of entire proceeding including the order dated 03.04.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 538/2011 (Tr. No. 1731/2012) by which Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . The case of the Complainant is that certain piece of land was purchased through registered sale deeds in 1968/69. Subsequently Petitioner No. 2 got Petitioner No. 3 to execute Sale-deed of the same land in favour of Petitioner No. 1 in which Petitioners No. 4 and 5 were witnesses. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18997 of 2012 (4) dt.22-11-2012 2 It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that if at all the allegations are believed it is the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 who should be aggrieved by the Petitioner No. 3 and not the Complainant for having sold a land not belonging to her. Further submission is that for the same cause of action a Title Suit is pending and in the facts of the case at best a civil dispute is made out. On the other hand, counsel for the Complainant submits that the act of the Petitioner No. 3 in selling of property which rightfully belong to her is an act of cheating and hence she should be prosecuted. Having gone through the Complaint Petition and documents, I am firmly of the view that no criminal offence is made out. In view of such, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 03.04.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 538/2011 (Tr. No. 1731/2012) by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur is, hereby, set aside. It is made clear that this order shall not prejudice any party in the civil dispute which is pending between them. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 419

Statute Text:
Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating by personation. Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.