IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29970 of 2007 Shyam Sundar Prasad, Son of Late Keshav Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Telia Patti, P.S. Town 9Motihari), District East Champaran, Motihari. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Manju Devi, W/o late Kedar Nath Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Teliapatti, P.S. Town (Motihari), District East Champaran. ------- Opp. Parties ----------- 7 16.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite party no.2. The impugned order taking cognizance dated 13.1.2007 for the offences under Section 406 and 420 I.P.C. has been assailed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that even if the whole of the accusation made in the First Information Report is accepted on its face value, no offence can be said to have been made out against him. Counsel for the petitioner in this context would submit that it is not in doubt that the husband of the informant had executed a sale deed on 12.2.2005 in favour of one Anpurna Devi for a consideration amount of Rs. 1,34,000/- and as per averments made in the sale deed, the said amount of consideration amount was also paid to the husband of the informant. It has also been submitted that the sale of land by the 2 husband of the informant has been sought to be questioned by him by raising a plea that the consideration amount was thereafter actually taken away by the petitioner and others for its being deposited in their bank account. This part of allegation of the informant as with regard to certain money being extracted from her husband relating to a transaction of a sale deed for the land admittedly belonging to the husband does not make out any offence under the Indian Penal Code much less under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as, there was neither inducement nor it has been alleged so in the First Information Report. This is a matter basically emerging out of a civil dispute and consequently, the continuance of criminal proceeding for such issues would be an abuse of the process of the Court. That being so, the impugned order taking cognizance, only as against the petitioner, is hereby set aside. It is, however, made clear that this order of quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would not stand in the 3 way of the informant opposite party no.2 or for that purpose any person of the family of the husband of the informant to get the claim in land, pertaining to the amount in question determined and adjudicated in a properly constituted money suit by the competent Civil Court. In the result, this application, with the aforementioned observations, is allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)