IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.37680 of 2007 KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH @ KRISHNA PRASAD, S/O LATE SUKHDEO PRASAD Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. KUMAR RANJEET SINHA, S/O LATE SUKHDEO PRSAD **** /6/ 19.02.2010 Heard both the sides. 2. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the entire proceeding, including the order, dated 14.03.2007, by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance in Complaint Case No. 529(C) of 2006 (Ekangarsarai P.S. Case No. 236 of 2006) under Sections 467, 468, 420, 406, 504 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the complainant and the present petitioner are full brothers and had executed a deed of exchange with accused no. 2, Raj Kishore Prasad, for plots no. 784, 710 and 708 for an area of 25.(1/2) decimals and 6 decimals respectively. The petitioner also executed an exchange of deed with accused no. 3 for 33 decimals land of plot no. 396 by a registered deed. The complainant alleges that this has been done since the petitioner wishes to grab the said land which belongs to the complainant and for which a Title Partition Suit bearing no. 74 of 1997 was pending. The petitioner has annexed the plaint of Title Suit No. 74 of 1997 to demonstrate that plots mentioned in the complaint and the subject matter of the title suit filed for partition in which the complainant is the first party and the petitioner is the second party are the same. 4. Opposite party no. 2 was noticed by this Court, but, despite service of notices he has chosen not to appear 2 before this Court to contest the present application. 5. The simple argument of the petitioner is that for adjudication of same area of land the complainant has filed a civil suit as also the present criminal case which should not be allowed to continue. His, further, submission is that in the facts of the case no offence whatsoever is made out and if at all it is a case of civil liability and not one of criminal intent. 6. On going through the complaint petition which was sent for enquiry under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, I find that it is purely a civil dispute which has been converted to a criminal prosecution and under the circumstances it is an abuse of process of the Court. 7. In the result, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order, dated 14.03.2007, is quashed. S.A. (Anjana Prakash, J.)