IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55467 of 2007 1. RANJANA DEVI, WIFE OF LSRI DHANANJAY SAH. 2. DHANANJAY SAH, SON OF LATE PAHALU SAH. 3. KISHUN SAH, SON OF LATE KARTIK SAH. 4. HARI BOL YADAV, SON OF LATE JAGDISH YADAV. PETITIONER NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHARNA TOLA (KEHUNIA), P.S. PRANPUR, DISTRICT KATIHAR, AT PRESENT PETITION NO.1 AND 2 RESIDE AT ANATHALAYA ROAD, LICHI BAGAN, P.S. AND DISTRICT KATIHAR. SO FAR PETITIONER NO.4 RESIDENT AT VILLAGE PAKARIYA SAHAJA, P.S. MANSAHI, DISTRICT KATIHAR. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. LAL MOHAN SAH, SON OF LATE PAHALU SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHARNA TOLA (KEHUNIA), POLICE STATION PRANPUR, DISTRICT KATIHAR. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 4. 29.9.2010. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 7.8.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.1813 of 2003 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 120(B) and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2, who was own brother of petitioner no.2, filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.1813 of 2003 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar against 2 the wife of petitioner no.2 i.e. petitioner no.1, the petitioner no.2 and others including his father, who was at that very time alive. It was alleged in the complaint petition that father of petitioner no.1 had transferred land of share of complainant to the petitioner no.1. The complainant has asserted that even the land which was purchased by him in the name of his mother was also transferred by his father to petitioner no.1. It was alleged that it was an Act of commission of serious offence and as such complaint was filed. After filing the complaint petition and conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate, by its order dated 7.8.2007, took cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal code. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Bhola Prasad that it was hardly a case of civil dispute. It was submitted that it was not a case that any fictitious person had executed the deed, but 3 father of the petitioner no.2 as well as complainant had transferred the land by registered deed. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of averment made in the complaint petition no offence can be made out. It can hardly be termed as a case of civil dispute. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the order. Shri Amar Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, on the strength of counter affidavit, has argued that whether offence is of civil nature or criminal, those can be examined by the concerned court not by this Court. It has been submitted that contents of the complaint petition categorically discloses commission of offence and as such this Court may refrain from interfering with the order. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Smt. Indu Bala Pandey has supported the stand taken by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. In the complaint petition, there is no averment that 4 N.H./ the sale deed was executed by any fictitious person or a person, who was not having any right or title over the land. It discloses that the land in question was transferred by the father of the complainant, who was also made accused in the present case. In view of the facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the dispute raised in the present complaint is purely a civil dispute and the complainant may not be allowed to invoke the criminal jurisdiction of the court. I am of the view that it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The order of cognizance dated 7.8.2007 so far as petitioners are concerned is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)