IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19242 of 2008 1. Dhanma Devi, wife of Late Gonaur Thakur, 2. Manoj Sharma @ Manoj Kumar Sharma, son of Ram Chandra Sharma, 3. Bindeshwar Rai, son of Late Jagdish Rai, 4. Mahendra Rai, son of Shri Suraj Rai, all of Gopalpur, PS Mahua, district Vaishali. 5. Jai Prakash Sharma, son of Ram Sobhit Sharma, village Milki, PS Mahua, district Vaishali – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Umesh Sharma, son of Laxmi Sharma, resident of Gopalpur, PS Mahua, district Vaishali – opp. parties. 4 4.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 28.3.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur in Tr. No. 3090/2004/Tr. No. 2269/07/Tr. No. 1927/2008 by which the petition filed for discharge of the petitioners has been rejected. Before stating the prosecution case the genealogical table which is relevant for deciding this matter is given below : LALJEE THAKUR | | | GONAUR THAKUR MUNNI LAL THAKUR = DHARMA DEVI (WIDOW) | PETITIONER NO. 1 | | | | | LAXMI RAM CHANDRA SONELAL SHARMA SHARMA SHARMA | | = KRISHNA UMESH SHARMA MANOJ SHARMA DEVI INFORMANT PETITIONER NO. 2 The case of the informant is that petitioner no.1 executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner no.2. The other petitioners are witnesses on the said sale deed. It is alleged that petitioner no.1 2 has sold the property which was transferred by way of a Will to the complainant by Munilal Thakur. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute is of a civil nature and, if at all, the informant can only challenge the sale deed by filing a civil suit. Counsel for the informant, on the other hand, submits that in 1995 Munilal Thakur, the grand father of the informant by way of a Will had transferred the said land in his name. It is further stated that the land so transferred by way of a Will were the personal property of Munilal Thakur and as such he had the right to transfer the land by way of a Will to the informant. The petitioners, on the other hand, disputes that the lands were the personal property of Munilal Thakur. The fact which is obvious and remains un-controverted is that the Will allegedly prepared in 1995 has not been probated as yet. Considering the nature of the dispute this court finds that in fact no offences are made out under section 420/34 of the Penal Code as in a case of this nature the only remedy available to the parties is by filing a suit for setting aside the sale deed. The order impugned is hereby quashed and this application is allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)