IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45153 of 2008 1) Md. Jabbar, son of Md. Subhan, 2) Maimum Nisa, daughter of Md. Jiyaullah, 3) Md. Aslam, son of Thaga Miya, 4) Md. Salauddin, son of Md. Islam, 5) Sitaram Rai, son of Mahavir Rai, 6) Md. Jalil, son of Suleman, 7) Md. Alamdin, son of Md. Sadik, 8) Md. Gulgani, son of Abdul Rajak, 9) Nageshwar Rai, son of Hardeo Rai, 10) Suresh Sahani, son of Jagdeo Sahani, 11) Md. Yanayat @ Md. Yanayatullah, son of Jiyaullah, 12) Sunil Kumar, son of Ram Narayan Sah, 13) Sikandar sah, son of Mahendra Sah, 14) Radho Rai @ Radha Rai, son of Basudeo Rai, 15) Mangal Ram, son of Sukhit Ram, 16) Md. Nasim, son of Md. Daud Miya, 17) Md. Daud, son of Md. Subhan, all of Bishambharpur, Ps Tariyani, Dist. Sheohar – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Md. Abdul Rahim, son of Late Rahamatullah Miya, village Bishambharpur, PS Tariyani, District Sheohar – Opp. Parties. 3 4.8.2011 HeardMr. Uday Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. for the State. In this case notice was issued to opposite party no. 2 who has appeared by filing Vakalatnama. However, no body is present on behalf of the opposite party to opposite this application. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 21.2.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. C1/287/2007 by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Penal Code. The allegation in the First Information Report is that the complainant opposite party no.2 and petitioners 1 to 3 were co-sharers of the lands mentioned in the First Information Report. It is alleged that the brother of the complainant without intimating him sold off joint family 2 property which amounts to cheating and is also a loss for the complainant. Petitioner no.1 and 17 are supposedly the brother or cousin brother of the complainant. Petitioners 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 15 are the purchasers of the lands mentioned in the First Information Report. Petitioners 4, 5, 13, 14 and 16 are the witnesses to the sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint has not produced any written document to show partition of the lands. In fact, it is submitted that the complainant does not have any share in the lands concerned. Be that as it may, it appears that this case relates to a civil dispute. The complainant is claiming that he has acquired the right and title over the lands in question by partition. It is not mentioned in the First Information Report whether the partition was oral or written registered partition. In any event unless there is some document to show that there is a partition, there cannot be any claim by the complainant. Even if it is presumed that the complainant has share in the lands, his share has to be declared by an appropriate court or by way of registered family arrangement. In the circumstances this court finds that the allegations levelled are of a civil nature and cannot be adjudicated in a criminal proceeding. The impugned order is accordingly quashed and this application is allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)