IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53647 of 2007 1. RAJENDRA BISHWAS @ HARILAL BISHWAS 2. LEELA DEVI W/O ARBIND SINGH --- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SURESH MANDAL SON OF LATE RABI MANDAL --- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 04 03.09.2010 Heard both sides. Present in an application for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 29.04.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Purnea in C.A. no. 1270 of 2000 ( Suresh Mandal vs. Leela Devi & ors.), whereby cognizance under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the Penal Code has been taken. According to the complaint, the petitioners are the owners in possession of the property whereas the complainant is the proposed buyer. An agreement to sale was entered into between them in 1997 whereunder a sum of Rs. 29,000/- was paid, and it was contemplated thereunder that the rest amount shall be paid within a period of one and half years whereafter the property shall be alienated in favour of the complainant. Somehow or the other the same could not be complied with. This prompted the parties to enter into yet another agreement to sale which was ultimately entered into on 29.09.1999 whereunder it was contemplated that the buyer (complainant) shall pay the rest amount on or before August 2000, and the petitioners (sellers) shall execute the sale deed. The allegation in the complaint is that although he was ready and willing to pay the said amount yet the petitioners did not execute the sale deed. A bare narration of the prosecution case would show that the matter is purely a civil dispute. It is not the allegation that the petitioners were not owners in possession of the property and/or they sold the property to someone on higher price or under different agreement. The parties are governed by their rights and liabilities covered by an agreement signed by and between them. Remedy lies in approaching Court of competent civil jurisdiction for enforcement of the agreement. In my view, allowing such prosecution to continue is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. I am thus convinced that the order requires to be interfered with. I accordingly interfere with. Accordingly, order dated 29.04.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Purnea in Complaint case vide C.A. no. 1270 /2000 is hereby quashed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)