IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50827 of 2007 1. RAMOTAR PRASAD YADUKA SON OF LATE SAGARMAL YADUKA, 2. SUSHIL KUMAR YADUKA, 3. ARUN KUMAR YADUKA, 4. ANIL KUMAR YADUKA ALL SONS OF RAMOTAR PRASAD YADUKA RESIDING AT SAHARSA WARD NO.3/16, P.S. SAHARSA, DISTRICT-SAHARSA --PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MAHENDRA TAMBOLI @ MAHENDRA CHAURASIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NAV HATTA, P.S. NAV HATTA, DISTT-SAHARSA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT BHARTIYA NAGAR, WARD NO.1/15, P.S. SAHARSA, DISTT-SAHARSA. -OPP.PARTIES _______ For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Ajoy Mishra,APP 3 26.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2, despite service of notice. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 12th April, 2006 passed by the court below (Sri A.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa) in Complaint Case no.1173 of 2005 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 420, 323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 2 issuing summons. On the very complaint, at Annexure-I, it appears that it has been filed with an allegation that on 2nd March, 1992 there was an agreement with late Sagarmal Gudewal, father of petitioner no.1 and grandfather of petitioners no.2 to 4 for transfer of a land under Khata no.1000, Khasra (old) 379, 713 (new), area 5 dhurs for Rs.13000/- . Possession of the land was handed over on receipt of Rs.12000/- and remaining Rs.1000/- was to be paid within stipulated period at the time of transfer and registration of the deed but till the death of executant, Sagar Mal Guddewal in the year 1998, no deed was executed and subsequently petitioners also avoided to respect the agreement, even petitioner no.4 also realized a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the purpose of getting execution of sale deed. Panchayati etc. was also organized but all in vain. Ultimately, the complainant, who was regularly requesting for execution of the sale deed, was abused and assaulted giving rise to the complaint. After examination of the witnesses, cognizance was taken. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the entire process is nothing but misuse of process of law and 3 difference between the parties, if any, are, in fact, of civil nature. Agreement for sale, if not effected to, the complainant has civil remedy but in no way he can take recourse to criminal court. Learned counsel appearing for the State tried to support the order by submitting that there are sufficient material but I find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances, afore-mentioned, the impugned order and subsequent proceeding are hereby quashed. The application stands allowed. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad