IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33627 of 2007 1. Rahmat Ali, Son of Hayat Ali Mian. 2. Subair Ahmad, Son of Rahmat Ali. 3. Mohammad Sayad @ Saidu Mian, Son of Late Sahadat Hussain. All resident of Village Khapura Tola Purni Sarai, P.S. Paliganj, District Patna. ------- Petitioners Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Aash Mohammad, Son of Late Shamshul Haque, Resident of Village Nirakpur, Paliganj Police Station, District Patna. -------- Opposite Parties ----------- 5 16.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State as also counsel for the opposite party no.2. The impugned order dated 14.2.2007 taking cognizance for an offence under Sections 406/468/420 of the Indian Penal Code has been sought to be assailed on the ground that the same is out and out a civil dispute for which criminal prosecution cannot be substituted. This Court has carefully gone into the averments made in the complaint petition as also the Title Suit No. 102 of 2006 and in fact in the complaint petition the complainant has in paragraph no.5 thereof made a specific allegation that the cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff on 27.4.1992 was a fraudulent act but 2 in the title suit no such relief has been sought for declaring such cancellation of deed to be void or inoperative. Obviously, the scope of the criminal case and the title suit are not on the same cause of action and therefore, this Court will have to proceed on the basis of the averments made in the complaint petition. Once such averments in the complaint petition is read and it is found that the court below has also relied on the statement of four witnesses examined in course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court would find no error in the impugned order, inasmuch as, they are based on the appreciation of the materials on record. Consequently, this Court would find no merit in this application and the same is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)