IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4511 of 2008 RAM KRIPAL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4/ 30.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The complaint petition itself may indicate that there was an agreement in between the parties for sale and purchase of a particular area of land of a particular description as given in the complaint petition. The consideration amount was also decided and entered in the written agreement for sale, part of which has also been paid by the complainant. The complainant alleged that after having received the maximum part of the consideration amount which was to the tune of Rs.36,65000, the accused persons were not agreeable to execute the sale deed and register it for which the complainant sent a notice through a counsel and that was replied to by the petitioner. The petitioner stated in the reply that the complainant required to pay an additional amount of Rs.4,00000/ in addition to what they had already received as part of the consideration amount. The complainant alleged that the area which was agreed to be sold or transferred to him by the petitioner was also short, which fact was concealed by the accused person and this could be the reason that in order to transfer a lesser area, he was playing tricks with the complainant. These are facts which are not denied, as may appear from the contention. The grievance of the complainant was that it 2 might be a case of purely civil dispute but it may also be a case of defrauding the complainant by getting money more than what was required to be paid to the accused person towards price of the land and further on account of concealment of an important fact that the area was not exactly what was agreed to be sold through written agreement. These are disputed facts and what appears admitted by both the sides is that there was written agreement for sale and some part of the contract had been performed by either of the parties. The other parts which were not performed by the accused person were brought into the notice by giving an appropriate legal notice through a counsel which was dated 9.9.2006 and it was not that the accused person was silent on those allegations. He was replying to the allegations and statements contained in that particular notice dated 9.9.2006 and was setting up a plea of lesser payment made to him. The court feels that the facts constitute a pure dispute of civil nature. It could be a dispute which could be brought before a competent Civil Court through an appropriately framed suit for performing part of the contract which was to be performed by the accused person. In the result, the present prosecution which was initiated by filing the complaint petition no. 918 C of 2006 before the A.C.J.M., Danapur, presently pending before the J.M. Ist Class, Danapur, appears an abuse of the process of the court and the 3 same is quashed. The petition stands allowed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)