Rajesh Shankar, J.:— The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.08.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. C-703/08 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 420/467/468 of the IPC against the petitioners.

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the present petition, is that Complaint Petition No. C-703/08 was filed by the O.P. No. 2 alleging that in the month of May, 2006 the petitioners by preparing forged and fabricated documents, made claim that they had purchased the land appertaining to Khata No. 39, Village-Kawatu, P.S-Ichak, District-Hazaribagh from one Most. Deojani Devi. The true fact is that after the death of Ram Tahal Upadhyaya (the son of the recorded tenant), his wife Most. Deojani Devi moved the family of the complainant's ancestor and the entire share of Ram Tahal Upadhyaya came in possession of the sons of Sheo Nath Upadhyaya. It has further been alleged that the person named as identifier of Most. Deojani Devi in the sale deed, namely, Ramdeo Upadhayaya, son of Sheonath Upadhyaya, had already died on 12.11.1986 whereas the sale deed was said to be executed on 09.01.1990 and thus an imposter was set up to execute the said sale deed as well as to identify the executant. It has also been alleged that the petitioners deliberately suppressed the alleged execution of the sale deed and waited to use it at a later stage conveniently after the death of Most. Deojani Devi, who incidentally died in the year 2003.

3. The said complaint was referred to the police for investigation of the case under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C and after investigation, the police submitted final form in the matter. The complainant filed protest petition and thereafter the Judicial Magistrate vide the impugned order dated 05.08.2009, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420/467/468 IPC against the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one title suit is also pending between the parties. It is well settled principle of law that if on the given facts of a case, a civil dispute is made out, a criminal prosecution is unwarranted. If the complainant had any grievance, he should have filed a suit before the competent Civil Court for declaring the sale deed as null and void. Moreover, the present complaint has been instituted after a long delay. Thus, the entire prosecution case is malicious. The complainant has got no locus standi to file the complaint case as he is not an agnate/descendant of the person who has executed the sale deed and in fact, Most. Deojani Devi died much after execution of the sale deed. The allegation made in the complaint is merely based on conjecture. The present complaint case has been instituted only to harass the petitioners as neither the death certificate of Late Ramdeo Upadhyay has been produced nor the same has been proved in any competent Court of law.

5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that only when the O.P. No. 2 obtained a certified copy of the sale deed, he came to know that the same was alleged to have been executed and got registered by Most. Deojani Devi, who started living with the family of Ramdeo Upadhyaya and was being looked after by him. Ramdeo Upadhyaya had three brothers, namely, Sajiwan Upadhyaya, Ram Swaroop Upadhyaya and Udit Upadhyaya. The O.P. No. 2 is the grandson of Ram Swaroop Upadhyaya. It is further submitted that the alleged sale deed was neither executed nor got registered by Most. Deojani Devi in favour of the petitioners, rather the said sale deed is a forged and fabricated one. Some other lady was engaged to execute and to get the sale deed registered in place of Most. Deojani Devi. The identifier of Most. Deojani Devi in the said sale deed namely Ramdeo Upadhyay had already died on 12.11.1986 i.e. before the execution of the sale deed as would be evident from the death certificate of Late Ramdeo Upadhyay annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed by the O.P. No. 2. The petitioners did not claim the land in question when Most. Deojani Devi was alive. Moreover, Most. Deojani Devi used to write her name, but in the alleged sale deed, the LTI in her name has been put which casts serious question in the manner the said sale deed got executed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the dispute raised by the O.P. No. 2 is civil in nature for which no criminal case is tenable in law.

7. To appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be relevant to go through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 wherein it has been held as under:—

“Re: Point (i)

12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few— MadhavraoJiwajiraoScindia v. SambhajiraoChandrojira oAngre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana v. BhajanLal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], RupanDeol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of Bihar v. RajendraAgrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals &Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615], HridayaRanjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. SharafulHaque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.”

8. It would thus emerge that merely because a civil remedy is available to an aggrieved person, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to proceed with the complaint is not ousted, if the same prima facie discloses commission of a criminal offence by an accused.

9. The very purpose of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is to prevent an abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. The power of quashing of a criminal proceeding should be exercised by the High Court sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The High Court while hearing a quashing petition, is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry as to the genuineness and reliability of the complainant. Moreover, the learned Court below at the stage of cognizance is only required to go through the complaint, peruse the statements of the complainant and the enquiry witnesses on oath and, thereafter, to pass an order of cognizance, if the said allegation prima facie makes out a case against an accused. The defence of an accused is to be taken into consideration at subsequent stage in terms with the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

10. It is a settled proposition of law that while considering the case for quashing of criminal proceeding, the High Court should not put an appropriate prosecution to an end prematurely unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.

11. In the present case, while passing the impugned order of cognizance dated 05.08.2009, the learned Court below has taken into consideration the complaint, the statement of the complainant on S.A as well as the evidence of the inquiry witnesses wherein it has been stated that Most. Deojani Devi and the identifier Ramdeo Upadhayaya used to make their signatures. However, in the sale deed, their thumb impressions are alleged to have been put. Moreover, as per the complaint, the identifier had already died before the execution of the sale deed in question. All these narrations are factual in nature, which are required to be examined at appropriate stage by the learned Court below.

12. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order of cognizance dated 05.08.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. C-703/08 needs no interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all the points available with them before the learned Court below at appropriate stage and the dismissal of the present petition shall not prejudice their case in the trial.

13. The present petition is dismissed.

14. I.A. No. 1026/2010 also stands disposed of accordingly.