IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12693 of 2009 1. VIJAY PRAKASH MISHRA 2. BHARTANDU KUMAR MISHRA, BOTH SONS OF LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD MISHRA, R/O STATION ROAD, SITAMARHI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. --PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. KUSMI DEVI WIFE OF GRIDHARILAL PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-MAHSOLE, PRATAPANAGAR, P.S. AND DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. --OPP.PARTY For the Petitioners : M/s Sanjeev Kmumar Mishra & Santa Kumar For the Opp.party : Mr. Uday Kumar For the State : Mr. Amarendra Prasad, APP 4 07.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Uday Kumar for opposite party no.2. With the consent of the learned counsels, this application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. This is an application seeking quashing of order dated 04.12.2008 passed in Trial no. 3413 of 2008 arising out of Complaint Case no. 1106 of 2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, first class, Sitamarhi, taking cognizance for the 2 offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant facts of this case is that opposite party no.2 got a sale deed executed in her favour by the petitioners with respect to 14 dhurs land, old plot no.1390, new 743 for Rs.47,500/-. Subsequently, there was a proceeding under Sections 144 and 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between her and one Bachchi Devi, not party to the present case, wherein said Bachchi Devi claimed herself to be purchaser of plot in question from father of the petitioners much before. Undisputedly the relevant plot is of a bigger area and there was one partition suit between the family of original owners. The complainant opposite party no.2 in the criminal proceeding asserted her possession by virtue of the sale deed executed by the petitioners but during pendency of 107 proceeding itself the complaint petition before the court below was filed. There is nothing mentioned about result of 144 of the Code of Criminal Proceeding. However, it is now disputed that in said proceeding opposite party no.2 got an order against her. At the time of execution of the sale deed in 3 favour of opposite party no.2 the petitioners have clearly recited in the deed that in case of any defect of title or the purchaser is out of possession due to such defects, they shall return the consideration with interest at a particular rate. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in earlier proceedings initiated much after transferring the land to her, the complainant opposite party no.2 has clearly asserted her possession but left the litigation only after getting an order against her in the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was only for a limited purpose as preventive measure. She, at the instance of others got initiated the criminal proceeding wherein also there is nothing averred warranting commission of any offence. But, cognizance has been taken without any material. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party, while supporting the order, submitted that petitioners knowing fully well that some transaction is there in favour of another lady by their father, but now they are not ready to refund the money for which initially they were agreed. It is evident from the deed in question that there is an agreement to refund the consideration in case of any 4 defect in, title or dispossession due to such defects and in the complaint petition in paragraph 3 it is averred that in pursuance of such agreement in the deed on the request made by the complainant petitioners initially were agreed to refund but after initial avoidance, ultimately, refused to pay the amount giving rise to complaint petition. The very averments in the complaint petition supported with recitals in the sale deed indicates that in fact it is a dispute relating to enforcement of an agreement to refund the money on certain event. Thus, it is nothing but a civil dispute for which criminal proceeding cannot be initiated under law. In the result impugned order and proceeding before the court below is quashed without affecting the right of complainant opposite party no.2 to get her grievances redressed by competent civil court or Lok Adalat etc. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad