JUDGMENT

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2006, passed by the Patna High Court in Crl. Misc. No.19975 of 2006 dismissing the same.

3. The Respondent No.2, Birendra Kumar Sinha, filed a Complaint Case No.3714C of 2005 against the Appellant alleging that she had committed offences under Section 406, 420, 465, 468, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by executing a Deed of Sale in his favour, on 12th February, 2005, in respect of a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 5 Dhurs, pertaining to Survey No.235 in Khata No.3 of Mauza Dhelwan under Phulwarisharif P.S., District Patna, Bihar. According to the complainant, the boundary wall erected by him around the said plot was demolished and on inquiry, he came to know that one Prabhu Singh, who had sold the land to the Appellant was the full brother of one Sita Ram Singh, who had earlier sold the entire area of Survey plot No.235 to different persons at different points of time by different sale deeds. The complainant alleged that Prabhu Singh, the Appellant's vendor and brother of Sita Ram Singh, had acted as an attesting witness in the said Sale Deeds executed by Sita Ram Singh, which indicated that inspite of having knowledge that Sita Ram Singh had sold the lands in question to others, Rama Devi purchased the said lands and in order to cheat the complainant, executed the Sale Deed in his favour on 12th February, 2005.

4. On 28th February, 2006, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, took cognizance of the alleged offences and issued process only against the Appellant herein. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.19975 of 2006 before the Patna High Court on 10th May, 2006, for quashing the cognizance taken as also the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.3714C of 2005 pending before the said Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna. On 20th December, 2006, the Patna High Court dismissed the Appellant's aforesaid petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

5. On behalf of the Appellant it was pointed out by Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned Senior Advocate, that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences complained of on an erroneous appreciation of the material before him to the effect that it was not disputed that the property in question had earlier been sold by Sita Ram Singh, who was the brother of the Appellant's vendor, and that the Appellant had attested the said Sale Deed, which clearly indicated that the Appellant had knowledge of the earlier sale and despite the same, had not only executed the Sale Deed in favour of the complainant but had also indicated that no other deed had been executed in respect of the property which were free from all encumbrances. Mr. Rai referred to the Sale Deeds which had been referred to by the learned Magistrate, from which it would be apparent that the Appellant was not an attesting witness to any of the sale deeds. Mr. Rai also referred to the Sale Deed executed by the Appellant in favour of the complainant to show that Prabhu Singh was not an attesting witness in the said document either and the witnesses were : (1) Kedar Prasad Singh, (2) Nawal Kisahore and (3) Awadhesh Kumar.

6. Mr. Rai submitted that since the very basis for the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate was fallacious and without any foundation, the High Court erred in dismissing the Appellant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate, as also the proceedings relating to the Complaint Case No.3714C of 2005, were liable to be quashed.

7. Mr. Rai's submissions were strongly opposed on behalf of the Respondent No.2, Birendra Kumar Sinha. It was submitted that no case had been made out on behalf of the Appellant for interference with the order of the High Court impugned in this appeal. Mr. P.S. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing