IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38612 of 2008 (1) Kamaldeo Prasad, son of Late Vishnu Yadav, (2) Rajkali Devi, wife of Kamaldeo Prasad Yadav, both of Rajendra Nagar, PS Chhatauni, District East Champaran at Motihari – Petitioners. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar, (2) Shambhu Nath Rai, son of Late Vijay Rai, village Ashopur, PS Piprahi, District Sheohar – Opp. Parties. 6 1.8.2011 HeardMr. F.A.Khan, counsel for the petitioner, the A.P.P. representing the State and Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, counsel for opposite party no.2. This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order, dated 8.8.2008 passed in G.R$. No. 319/2007 / T. R. No. 1354/2008 by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar by which cognizance has been taken for the offences alleged to have been committed under sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120B/34 of the Penal Code. The lands in question appertain to Khata Nos. 371 and 400, khesra no. 1912 and 420 respectively. The lands in plot no. 1912 measures about 50 decimals whereas the measurement of plot no.420 is 12 decimals. The petitioners had received this land by way of a registered family arrangement, dated 11.6.1986. Three sons of Dayanand died in jointness. One of the son is still surviving. After the death of three sons of Dayanand the family arrangement was executed and the daughter and wife of Ram Jewar Rai were allotted 3.83 acres of land. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that petitioner no.2 has previously sold the homestead land to one Kaushalya Devi, wife of 2 Bindeshwari Rai. Kaushalya Devi is also an agnate of petitioner no.2. It is alleged that this the very land was subsequently sold to Shambhunath Yadav, Ramnath Yadav, Jai Ram Yadav, Sanjay Nath Yadav, and Vidya Rai. Counsel for the petitioners submits that both the sale deeds were obtained by practicing fraud. It is said that there was an agreement to sell other lands which was allotted to her and in the said sale deed the present lands have also been included by the opposite party. Counsel for opposite party no.2, on the other hand, submits that once the petitioners had sold the lands in 1995, she could not have sold the same land to opposite party no.2 and her brother. Such an act amounted to cheating and playing fraud on the opposite party. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have filed a title suit for cancellation of both the sale deeds whereas opposite party no.2 has filed a money suit claiming that he is entitled to receive the money paid by him to petitioner no.2 in lieu of the sale deed by petitioner no.2 on 7.5.2004. The main arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners is that she is looser in view of the fact that both the transactions have been manipulated by the respective vendees. In fact they should be proceeded against by way of a criminal proceeding. The question as to whether the sale deed was obtained by fraud would need to be considered in T.S. No. 51/2010. Opposite party no.2 has appeared in that case and he is yet to file 3 the written statement. It is also admitted fact that opposite party no.2 had filed Money Suit No. 2/2006. The petitioners have appeared in the said suit and has filed a written statement. Both the cases are pending in the court of Sub Judge I. It would be proper for the Sub Judge I to hear these cases side by side. Since the parties have appeared in both the suits, there can be no difficulty in hearing the cases side by side. As far as criminal case is concerned, it would always be open for opposite party no.2 to file a criminal case once the suits aforesaid are decided. If the court comes to a finding in favour of opposite party no.2. I, thus, quash the entire proceeding in the aforesaid case with liberty to opposite party no.2 to take steps in accordance with law in the circumstances mentioned aforesaid. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)