IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.355 of 2010 1. SMT.SHEELA RAI W/O SHRI RAMA NAND RAI R/O MOH.- SHREE NAGAR HATA, BHOLA PASWAN SHASTRI CHOWK, P.S.- K.HAT, DISTT.- PURNIA. 2. SHRI RAMA NAND RAI, S/o LATE GANESH PRASAD RAI, R/O MOH.- SHREE NAGAR HATA, BHOLA PASWAN SHASTRI CHOWK, P.S.- K.HAT, DISTT.- PURNIA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DINESH KUMAR YADAV S/O SHRI BHULAN PRASAD YADAV R/O MOH.- COURT STATION ROAD, P.S.- K.HAT, DISTT.- PURNIA ----------- 04. 10.01.2011 The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnia in Complaint Case No. 1386 of 2006 by which he has taken cognizance under Sections 420 and 120B IPC. The case of the complainant is that on 17.05.2005 the parties entered into an agreement for sale of a certain piece of land which was to be executed by July 2005. However, the complainant paid the accused persons part of contracted amount even till October, 2005 but the sale deed was not executed. Being aggrieved the complainant filed a criminal case numbered as Complaint Case No. 1386 of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence punishable under the criminal law would be made out in the facts of the case and at best the only alternative was to file a suit for specific performance. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the accused persons continued to receive money even 2 after expiry of the stipulated date which shows the criminal intent of the accused persons and, therefore, the order of cognizance is fully justified. He concedes that a suit for specific performance has already been filed but submits that the present case can continue despite the same in view of a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2000(3) PLJR SC 56. I am of the view and considering the various decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court on the point no offence whatsoever is made out against the accused persons much less under Sections 420 and 120 IPC. The case cited by the Counsel for the complainant does not cover the facts of the case since all that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in that decision was that simultaneous proceedings under the civil law as well as criminal law could continue if the facts of the case so warranted. In view of such, this application is allowed and the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnia in Complaint Case No. 1386 of 2006 is quashed. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)