THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Petition No. 5455 of 2009 Order: This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been ﬁled by the petitioner/A3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 55 of 2009 pending on the ﬁle of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banswada. Heard. The second respondent herein is the complainant. He lodged a complaint alleging that he is having agricultural lands and towards west and north sides of his lands there is a land bearing Sy.No.562/a/P4, aldmeasuring 0-34 gts., which belongs to A1 and A2. His case is that on 29.11.2006 A1 oﬀered to sell the said land for a valid consideration of Rs.11,000/- and that as it is adjacent to his land he agreed to purchase the same and paid earnest money of Rs.1,000/- and agreed to pay the remaining amount and that A1 executed an agreement of sale in his favour. His further case is that subsequently when he requested A1 and A2 to receive the sale consideration amount and register the sale deed they refused to do so and he subsequently came to know that A2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of A3, and A1 attested the said sale deed as a witness. The said complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police registered a case in Crime No.66 of 2007 under Sections 420 and 506 IPC and after completing investigation they ﬁled a ﬁnal report holding that the dispute is of civil nature. Then a notice was given to the second respondent herein who ﬁled a protest petition and on the said protest petition the proceedings are being continued against the petitioner herein. After ﬁling the protest petition the second respondent herein was examined before the lower Court. As seen from the contents of the protest petition and his statement, the only allegation made against the petitioner herein is that he came to know that the petitioner herein has purchased the land even though it is not convenient to her and that she purchased the land and knowingly cheated him. In the protest petition the second respondent herein alleged that the accused have cheated her and A1, having taken advance of Rs.1,000/- from him, sold the land to other persons. There is no allegation in the protest petition that the petitioner herein, knowing fully well about the agreement of sale between the second respondent and accused Nos.1 and 2, purchased the property. As far as the petitioner herein is concerned it appears that on the mere allegation that the second respondent came to know that the petitioner herein purchased the land and knowingly cheated him, is not suﬃcient to say that the ingredients of Sections 420 IPC have been made out. It is made clear that the proceedings may go on against A1 and A2. But, as far as the petitioner/A3 is concerned, I am of the considered view that continuing the proceedings against her would amount to abuse of process of law and result in unnecessary harassment to her. If the second respondent wants to examine the petitioner herein as his witness, he is at liberty to examine her as his witness during the course of trial. Subject to the observations made supra, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 alone are quashed. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 01.12.2011 Nsr