R.R. Prasad, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case bearing No. 790 of 2000, including the order dated 9.2.2001, passed by the then learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and on perusal of record, it does appear that the petitioner No. 2 came in possession of the land and house, in question by virtue of a deed of lease executed by Shreela Chaudhary on 10.10.1966. While the petitioners were in possession of over the land and house, in question, the complainant's wife got a sale -deed with respect to same land and house executed by Somya Choudhary in the year 1981 and got her name mutated against the land, in question. Thereupon the petitioner No. 2 filed a Title Suit bearing No. 14 of 1983, against the wife of the complainant, wherein, relief was sought that the suit be decreed declaring his right, title and interest and also possession over the suit property and also for cancellation of order of mutation passed in favour of the wife of the complainant. That suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner -plaintiff on 16.6.1989. Thereafter the land and the house was mutated in his name. Subsequently Shreela Choudhary executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner No. 2 on 27.5.1994. According to the petitioners, they started running a school over the said land and house.
(2.) HOWEVER , in the year 1993, the complainant filed a Title Suit No. 11 of 1993, for declaration of his right, title over the land, in question. While the matter was pending for decision, complainant filed the complaint case in the year, 1994, alleging therein, that the petitioner No. 2 got the sale deed executed by a fictitious person. Upon which cognizance of the offences alleged has been taken against the petitioners though right of the petitioners had already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(3.) THUS the case appears to be of purely civil dispute still cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken which is quite illegal.;