IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.576 of 2005 HARENDRA CHAUDHARY & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4. 16.4.2009 The learned counsel for the petitioner is present. No one is present for the opposite parties. The learned counsel submits that on the previous occasion also no one was present for O.Ps. to oppose. The complainant, Ram Ayodhya Kunwar alleged that he purchased 2 Kathas of land pertaining to Khata No.123, Survey No.27 on 29.3.96 for consideration of Rs.3000/- by a registered sale deed. Further more after the death of Jamaluddin Mian, his son, Khalil Mian and two daughters, namely, Aayesha Khatoon and Nabujan Khatoon came in possession of the said land. His son, Khalil also died leaving his wife, Mariyam Khatoon who executed a sale deed on 4.9.86 in favour of Prabhawati Devi, petitioner no.4. However, when Prabhawati Devi did not pay the consideration money Mariyam Khatoon asked for cancellation of the sale deed upon which petitioner no.3, Hari Kishore Thakur settled the matter and got the sale deed registered in his name on 6.12.1987. Thereafter Petitioner no.3, Hari Kishore Thakur executed a sale deed in respect of 2 kathas of land in favour of the petitioner no.1, Harendra Choudhary, on 30.12.1995. On 29.3.1996 Harendra Choudhary and his minor son executed a sale deed with respect to the aforesaid 2 kathas in favour of O.P.No.2, Ram Ayodhaya Kunwar and since then the O.P.no.2 states that he is in 2 possession of the said land. The complainant alleged that a sale deed has been executed by Prabhawati Devi in favour petitioner no.2, Lalti Devi on 24.2.2004 regarding the same piece of land. Lalti Devi, petitioner no.2, is the wife of petitioner no.1. On this basis the complainant alleged that the fraud was committed. The learned counsel submits that the allegation leveled against the accused persons is of a civil nature, the offences alleged do not contain criminal ingredients. He submits that petitioner no.2 has sold the aforesaid land to the complainant and she is coming in possession. This Court finds that complainant admits that he is in possession of the land. Further more he does not dispute that petitioner no.1, who is the husband of petitioner no.2 has sold the land to O.P.No.2. The dispute appears to be of a civil nature. In the result, this revision application succeeds and the prosecution case arising out of Complainant Case no.614/05 under sections 406 and 120 of I.P.C. is hereby quashed. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)