IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.747 of 2005 1. RAMESHWAR PRASAD @ RAMESHWAR SAO, SON OF LATE THAKURI SAO 2. HARIHAR MAHTO, SON OF LATE SABLI MAHTO 3. SANJAY KUMAR, SON OF RAMESHWAR PRASAD @ RAMESHAR SAO 4. KESHAV MAHTO @ KESHO PRASAD, SON OF LATE BULLU MAHTO ALL OF VILLAGE/MOHALLA SOHSARAI (KARUNABAG), HABIBPURA, P.S. SOHSARAI, DISTRICT NALANDA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RAM LAKHAN PRASAD, SON OF LATE BHATTAN MAHTO RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HABIBPURA (KARUNABAGH), P.S. SOHSARAI, DISTRICT NALANDA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners :- Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate For Opp. Party :- Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. J.K. Singh No. 1, A.P.P. *********** 7 3.12.2010 I.A. No. 2287 of 2008 Opposite party no. 2 Ram Lakhan Prasad died during the pendency of this application. Since this matter relates to property and involves financial implications, the sons of Ram Lakhan Prasad would be entitled to pursue the criminal case. This Interlocutory Application is allowed. There are three allegations in the complaint petition. The first allegation is that the petitioner no. 1 had paid a sum of 2 Rs. 25,000/- for a piece of land belonging to the complainant and the complainant had agreed to transfer the lands on payment of the entire amount in favour of petitioner no. 1. The second complaint is that it is said on behalf of the complainant Ram Lakhan Prasad that the petitioner has sold the land of Ram Lakhan Prasad of Khata No. 112, Khesra No. 79 vide sale deed no. 20940 dated 13.12.1985 to a third party. The third allegation against the petitioner no. 1 is that he has transferred the land of Khata No. 104, Khesra No. 81 measuring 12 decimals in favour of his son accused no. 2. As far as the first allegation is concerned, the petitioner no. 1 has already filed a suit for specific performance. The Civil Court will decide the validity of the ‘Mahadanama’. Therefore, as far as this part of the allegation is concerned, I do not think that it can be subject matter of a complaint. The second and third allegations made against the petitioner in relation to the allegations specified in various 3 paragraphs will be considered by the Court below, in case the petitioner files an application of discharge. I may point out that the allegations basically relate to title regarding land. Both parties are claiming title to the land. It is also true that both parties have filed cases against each other regarding disputes arising out of the title to the land. The Trial Court while considering this aspect of the matter will necessarily consider the documents i.e. the documents relating to title before framing charges. It may be noted that the documents do not prima facie show the absolute title of one party or the other, in that case it is obvious that the validity of the sale deed or validity of any deed of transfer can only be resolved by a civil court and, therefore, would not really constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code. With these observations, this quashing application is disposed of. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)