IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21062 of 2007 MOHD.NAUSAD KHAN, son of Ismile Khan, resident of village- Mohalla- Chhawani Betiah, P. S.- Motihari Town, Distt. – East Champaran. …. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Arzoo Khanam w/o Moin Khan, d/o Sheikh Mohmmad Sharif, Vill of res- Sang Ram Pur, District- East Champaran. ….Opposite parties ----------- 5. 18.05.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State. In a complaint case No. 530 C relating to T. R. No. 1834 of 2006 cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 120 B of the IPC. The order was challenged in a criminal revision. Vide order dated 10.8.2006 the application has been rejected. Both the orders are under challenge now in the present application. The basic allegation in the complaint is that one Hadish Khan is alleged to have sold the piece and parcel of land beyond his share to the present petitioner by way of a sale deed executed on 1.3.2004. According to opposite party, said Hadish Khan had land to the extent of 3 kathas and 6 dhurs only. But the sold land includes the share of opposite party no. 2 as well and the total area alleged to have been sold is five kathas. Based on said complaint order of cognizance came to be passed which has been affirmed in revision. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a frivolous complaint has been filed against the petitioner 2 without making said Hadish Khan as an accused who is alleged to have sold land to this present petitioner. It is further alleged that it is basically a civil dispute and there is nothing to indicate that opposite party has taken any steps for defending her interest of getting her share in the property. Even otherwise it is not explained in the complaint as to how she claims share or Hadish Khan had share in the property which has been sold. Learned counsel for opposite party submits that if Hadish Khan had sold land which does not belong to him or beyond the share he had, the case of Section 420 read with section 120 B IPC is made out. Having heard rival contentions and submissions and perusing the record, the court is of the considered opinion that all is not well and the complaint lacks due bona fide, especially, when no steps have been taken to protect her interest in getting the so-called sale deed declared void. It is an out and out civil dispute for which the prosecution of the petitioner cannot be allowed to stand. This application is allowed. Order dated 10.8.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-4, Motihari in Cr. Revision No. 136/68 of 2006/2006 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 24.06.2005 is quashed. Quashing of the criminal proceeding will not come in the way of opposite party no. 2 to take appropriate remedial measures before an appropriate civil court. kanchan (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)