IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14054 of 2009 1. JAGDISH PRASAD SON OF LATE MAHABIR SINGH. 2. ASHA PRASAD W/O JAGDISH PRASAD. BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE AND POST- BEUR, P.S. PHULWARI, NEW BEUR, DISTRICT- PATNA. --------PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioners----------- Mr. M.P Bhartee, Adv. Mr. S.K. Bhartee, Adv. For the State ----------Mr. Dasrath Mehta, Adv 6 07.03.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, opposite party and the State. The petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance dated 03.01.2009, whereby, the cognizance has been taken under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 427 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 2770(C) of 2008. Initially, on 29.06.2010, the matter was heard when the interim order was passed and notice was issued to opposite party no. 2. The accusation is that the petitioner’s son accepted certain amount for executing the sale deed, but subsequently, the money was returned, to this extent, the factual matrix is not controverted. The agreement was prepared between the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2, but in fact, it was executed by the petitioners’ son. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the agreement was executed at the behest of the petitioners. Since, the petitioners did not execute the agreement nor they returned the money, their prosecution is bad. Hence in the interest of justice and considering the civil nature of accusation, 2 the order of cognizance dated 03.01.2009 including the entire prosecution of Complaint Case No. 2770(C) of 2008 with respect to petitioners are, hereby, quashed. Amrendra/ (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)