IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.43492 of 2008 1. Laljee Rai son of Late Bandhu Rai 2. Amresh Rai son of Laljee Rai Both of Village – Nautan Baluwar, Police Station Nautan, District Siwan 3. Ram Ekbal Rai son of Late Mankeshwar Rai, resident of Village – Khalwan, Police Station Nautan, District Siwan …Accused/Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Indira Devi wife of Nagendra Pandey Resident of village Nautan Baluwa, Police Station Nautan, District Siwan ……… Complainant …….. Opp. Parties ---------------------------------- 03- 22/12/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. Earlier, this Court on 9.8.2011 had issued notice to opposite party no. 2 and, as per the service report, opposite party no. 2 has personally received notice. However, nobody appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 when the case is called out. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashing the order dated 8.7.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Siwan, in Complaint Case No. 1021 of 2008 by which cognizance has been taken for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The complaint case was filed by opposite party no. 2 alleging therein that 2 petitioner no.1 had taken money for transferring a portion of their land in favour of the complainant (opposite party no.2). But inspite of the whole money being given and upon repeated requests to get the sale deed executed and registered, the same was not done on the pretext that the petitioner kept telling the complainant to first build her house on the land and thereafter the same would be transferred. Lastly it is stated that the petitioner criminally intimidated the complainant and threatened her with dire consequences if she ever raises the question of getting the land transferred in her favour. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from a bare perusal of the complaint petition it is obvious that there is absolutely no proof of either there being any agreement for sale or of the money actually having been paid by the complainant to the petitioner no.1. He submits that the Registration Act stipulates that any agreement with regard to transaction of property has to be compulsorily registered and thus, in the present case that not being done, raises serious doubt about the contention of the complainant. It is further submitted that 3 the allegation of having paid money to petitioner no.1 is also not sustainable since the money was quite substantial and payment of the same without any kind of receipt is unbelievable and unnatural. Learned counsel lastly submits that in any view of the matter, the grievance basically is of civil nature for which the appropriate remedy would be the civil court of competent jurisdiction including filing of a case for specific performance. He further submits that allegation of criminal intimidation if far-fetched inasmuch as it is quite unnatural that the petitioner would enter into the quarter of the complainant late at night and would behave in the manner alleged. Learned counsel points out to a relevant aspect of the matter which according to him is the fact that the husband of the complainant is a school teacher but nowhere in the entire complaint there is mentioning as to what he was doing or what was his role in the whole transaction including on the fateful day when the complainant was supposed to have been assaulted by the petitioner. He submits that this criminal case is a proxy by the husband of the complainant in order to exert undue pressure on the petitioner for 4 parting their land which the complainant and her husband were eyeing for a long time. Learned counsel for the State very fairly submits that from the tenor of the complaint as well as the allegations made therein, the matter is basically of a civil dispute nature. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners are well-founded. The allegations, besides appearing to be unnatural, are also basically in the nature of a civil dispute for which the appropriate forum is the civil court of competent jurisdiction. The criminal courts cannot be allowed to be a tool to settle scores or seek undue advantage with oblique motives. In the present case, this Court feels that the complaint case is an abuse of the process of the Court. For the reasons mentioned above, the order taking cognizance dated 8.7.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Siwan, in Complaint Case No. 1021 of 2008 is set aside. 5 This application stands allowed. mrl ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)