IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34549 of 2009 1. Md. Habib, son of Late Ali Hussain, 2. Bibi Kaushar, wife of Alanur, both of village Chikni Garaiya, PS and District Araria – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Bibi Bulesha, wife of Md. Zaheer, 3. Alanur, son of Late HJaji Md. Siddique, 4. Md. Naiyar, son of Md. Habib, all of Chikni Garaiya, PS Araria, Dist. Araria – opp. parties. 4 19.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners have challenged the order, dated 8.6.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Araria in Complaint Case No. 494C/2009 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under sections 467/120B of the Penal Code against the petitioners and opposite parties 3 and 4. In this case notices were issued. A Vakalatnama has been filed by Mr. Md. Bahauddin, Advocate but no one appears. The complainant is sister of opposite party no.2. The allegation made in the complaint petition is that the brother of opposite party no.3 along with his wife, petitioner no.2 has sold land pertaining to Khesra No. 1478, Khata no. 235, measuring 14 decimals at Mauza Chikni to the minor children of Md. Nayar, namely, Md. Alanur and Bibi Kaushar. The father of the two minor children along with the grand father who is petitioner no.1 in this case have been made accused for committing forgery. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said land originally belonged to Bibi Nasiran. Bibi Nasiran was declared as the owner of the said land in T.S. No. 525/1996. It is said that in 1997 2 she had gifted part of the said land to Alanur, her son. Alanur and his wife accordingly sold the said land to the grand children of petitioner no.1. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is of a civil nature and the only remedy available to the complainant is to get the sale deed set aside or claim partition from her brother with respect to the family property. Apart from this as per the allegations in the FIR it cannot be said that any forgery was committed by executing the sale deed. A person may rightly or wrongly claim title over a particular land but the ultimate fact whether he or she has title over the land cannot be decided in a criminal proceeding. On the other hand, it is equally clear that this order passed in this case will not amount to declaring the rights of the parties viz-a-viz the land in question. In view of the facts of the case I find that no offence is made out under section 467 of the Penal Code and the dispute is of civil nature. The impugned order is accordingly quashed. This application is allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)