CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.6691 OF 2004 ********** In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ********** 1. MOFIZUDDIN S/O LATE DARBARUDDIN 2. MAJRUL S/O MOFIZUDDIN BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHOUNDI P.S. POTHIA DISTRICT- KISHANGANJ --------------------------(Appellants) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. FARUQUE S/O LATE RAHIMUUDDIN R/O VILLAGE BAGMARA P.S. POTHIA DISTRICT- KISHANGANJ. -----------------------(Respondents) ************ For the State : C. JAWAHAR APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 18.9.2003 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, in Complaint Case no. 991 of 2003 by which cognizance has been taken for offences under Sections 420 & 468 of I.P.C. 2. On 12.9.2005 notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2, whereas further proceedings in the court below were stayed. On 24.11.2005 both the parties were heard and therafter the application was admitted with the interim order of stay. Today no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2. 3. The complainant alleges that lands of plot no. 2203 under Kaimi Khata No. 90 stood in the name late Juma Bax 2 grand father of the complainant and after the death of the recorded tenant the father of the complainant continued in possession as Kaimidar & Sikmidar of the said land and after his death, the complainant came in possession of the same. However, the petitioner no. 1 is said to have come to the complainant with a registered deed of Kabuliyat executed in 1976 by the father of the complainant by which he became a Sikmidar tenant of the land of plot no. 2203 recorded under Khata No. 90. He alleged that the document which was ex- parte deed was a forged one since it was recorded in the name of Juma Bax grand father of the complainant and plot no. 2203 was not under Sikmi Khata No. 74. He alleged that the forged deed of Kabuliyat had been prepared by the accused no. 1 in collusion with 2 and 3 who were attesting witnesses with an intention to grab the ancestral land of the complainant. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on 15.9.2005 and after only one more witness was examined cognizance was taken as mentioned above. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire complaint contains, no element of criminal intent and the dispute is civil in nature. Moreover, a proceedings under Sections 48 (D) B.T. Case No. 66/2002-03 has already been filed on behalf of the complaint in respect of 3 the said land and he has obtained an ex-parte order in his favour from the Anchal Adhikari, Pothia and the matter is pending in appeal. 5. On perusal of the complaint, I find total absence of any allegation that it was the petitioners who had forged any document or cheated the complainant on its basis and a criminal case of this nature cannot be allowed to proceed on vicarious liability. In my opinion, the continuance of proceedings is gross abuse of the process of the court. 6. In view of such, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including order dated 18.9.2003 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, in Complaint Case no. 991 of 2003 by which cognizance has been taken for offences under Sections 420 & 468 of I.P.C. is quashed. 7. Application stands allowed. ( Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 12th July, 2010 NAFR/ Fahad.