IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16875 of 2009 1.SULOCHANA SINHA @ SULOCHANA DEVI, Wife of Pankaj Kumar Sinha 2.PANKAJ KUMAR SINHA, Son of Late Siya Kishore Prasad 3.MANISH KUMAR SINHA @ SANJEEV KUMAR SINHA, Son of Pankaj Kumar Sinha All Resident of Village Khairma, P.O. Jamui, P.S. Jamui, District Jamui. .......Petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.BHOLA SINGH, Son of Hari Singh, Resident of Village Khairma, P.S. Jamui, District Jamui. .......Complainant-opposite parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : Mrs. Poonam Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Z. Hoda, A.P.P. 03/- 22-11-2010 Heard learned counsel for the three petitioners, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of order dated 04.09.2008 passed by Sri M.A. Karim, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui in Complaint Case No. 583 C of 2008, taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 468 & 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint petition against five persons including the petitioners as accused nos. 3 to 5 with the allegation that accused no. 1 (non-petitioner) has transferred the land belonging to the complainant by executing a registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioner and accused no. 2 (non-petitioner) is identifier of the vendor in such transaction. 2 It is admitted position that one suit of partition bearing Title Suit No. 29 of 1988 pending in the court of Sub-Judge, Jamui is going on at the instance of accused no. 1 (non-petitioner), where in opposite party no. 2 is one of the defendant and apart from others the land in question is also subject matter of the suit. It is undisputed that even if the petitioners are purchased the land from accused no. 1 (non-petitioner), if he has title as interest, the petitioners are the worse sufferer, in fact they might have been cheated at the instance of other accused persons (non-petitioners), but in no case the any criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that theory of lis pendense shall made applicable as though without knowing the pendency of the suit they have purchased, but title suit for partition is going on since before their purchase. He further agrees that petitioners are intervening in the title suit, so that the dispute between the parties may set at rest by the competent civil court without any further delay. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above further proceeding against the petitioners, if permitted to continue shall sheer wastage of precious judicial time, consequently, the proceeding before the court below is quashed with respect to the petitioners, accordingly this application stands disposed of. Praveen (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)