IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9300 of 2008 1. VISHWANATH SAH S/O LATE REKHA SAH 2. NAIMUL HAQUE ANSARI, 3. JAINUL HAQUE ANSARI, 4. SHAMSUL HAQUE ANSARI, ALL SONS OF LATE SHUKAT ALI 5. NAINUL HAQUE ANSARI S/O MOHAMMAD ALI 6. EKRAMUL HAQUE ANSARI S/O AHMAD ALI 7. ATAUR RAHMAN S/O JAINUL HAQUE ANSARI 8. KAIYAMUDDIN ANSARI S/O RAHMATULLA ANSARI ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-AKSHI, POST MOKAN, P.S. AGRER, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. --PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJ BANSH PRASAD S/O BANS ROPAN RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-AKASHI, P.S. AGRER, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. --OPP.PARTIES. For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwary For the Opp.Party : Mr. Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra 4 28.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and opposite party. This is an application seeking quashing or order dated 10th December, 2007 passed in Complaint Case no.992 of 2005 by the court below refusing the prayer of discharge of the petitioners. In short, the relevant facts is that opposite party 2 no.2 filed the complaint against the petitioners alleging that they got a sale deed executed on 12th August, 2005 with respect to a piece of land which was purchased by the complainant earlier on 10th March, 2005 from rightful owner and he is in possession thereon. The dispute between the parties appears to be with respect to their claims over piece of land by virtue of purchase from alleged rightful owners. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already filed civil suits seeking adequate relief with respect to title and deeds in question. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the opposite party that trial has already commenced but he produced certified copy of deposition of certain witnesses which indicates that they were cross-examined before charge only as such depositions are not relevant for the present nor supports the submission as regards to commencement of trial. The dispute between the parties is undisputedly of civil nature and no criminal offence is made out against the petitioner. The case is squarely covered by the decision of Apex Court in the case Md. Ibrahim and Others V. The 3 State of Bihar & Another; (2009) 8 Suprme Court Cases 751 = (2009) 4 PLJR 99 (SC) wherein it is held at paragraph 23: “that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint.” Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. The petition stands allowed. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad