Criminal Miscellaneous No.17780 of 1998 ----------- In the matter of an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ----------- ARUN KUMAR PANDEY son of Sri Uma Kant Pandey resident of village Patkhauli, P.S. Bagaha, District West Champaran ...........Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rama Kant Sah @ Rama Kant Prasad son of Late Beni Madhava Sah, resident of Narainpur, P.S. Bagaha District West Champaran ........Opposite Parties ----------------------- For the petitioner: Mr. Abhitabh Kumar, Advocate For the State: Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Sr. Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH Shiva Kirti Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Although the name of learned counsel for the complainant/ O.P. No.2 appears in the daily cause list, he has chosen not to appear and contest this quashing application. By the impugned order dated 7-3-1998 learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bagaha, district West Champaran has taken cognizance under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in Trial no. 1023/98. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier a similar complaint by the complainant was referred to police for instituting a police case and after investigation the police submitted final report showing the case to be false. In that 2 case, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the informant did not appear after notice and hence the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. On that basis it has been submitted that second complaint could not have been entertained by the court and no enquiry could have been held or cognizance taken as has been done by the learned Magistrate. The offences alleged are u/s 420 and 406 of the IPC which are not compoundable and hence the matter could not have been concluded through Lok Adalat which has jurisdiction only in compoundable cases and that also only where both the parties have settled their differences amicably. Hence, it cannot be held that the earlier complaint came to a final conclusion in accordance with law so as to bar the second complaint petition. On behalf of the petitioner it has further been submitted that the allegations in the complaint petition made out only a civil case for a breach of an agreement for sale. On that account, it has been submitted that the criminal case should be quashed. The law is well settled that in an appropriate case civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings can be maintained unless the allegations in the criminal case fail to make out a criminal offence. In the present case a perusal of the complaint petition shows that the complainant has alleged cheating by making allegations which go beyond a simple allegation that an agreement for sale was violated. The complainant has alleged that he was duped to pay money which he paid within the period 3 stipulated for payment of consideration money but the accused had an intention to cheat him and, therefore, he transferred the land to another person. Without going into the merits of the allegations, it is prima facie found that the allegations are not purely civil in nature. Hence, it is not possible to quash the complaint on the grounds urged in the petition. This application is, therefore, dismissed. Since the matter is an old one, it is expected that the court below shall conclude the trial expeditiously and in accordance with law. Patna High Court The 19th March, 2010 NAFR/BKS (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)