The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations must disclose a criminal offence, and the court may quash the order of cognizance if it finds that the dispute is of a civil nature and the criminal case is a misuse of the process of the court.

Ghanshyam Prasad, J.

1. Heard.

2. This application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order of cognizance dated 19.9.2006 passed by Sushir Saroj Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1875(C) of 2005 thereby and thereunder cognizance under Secs. 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been taken against the petitioners.

3. Petitioners are Chairman, Vice Chairman, Vice President and present and past members of the Abhiyanta Grihi Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Patna. The Samiti is a registered society. Opposite party No. 2 is also one of its members. He became its a member in the year 1981. As per demand of the samiti, the complainant-opposite party No. 2 also deposited money and, accordingly, the samiti was agreed to allow 3 kathas of land in his favour. However, vide lease deed dated 30.10.1986 the complainant was allotted only 2 kathas of land bearing plot No. Z-14 has been alleged that later on the same was also re-sold by the petitioner No. 2 to neighbouring Ashiana Cooperative Society. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 sent legal notice to the petitioners and also personally approached them for transfer of kathas of land but they did not do. Hence. tnis complaint has been lodged by the opposite party No. 2.

4. It appears that after enquiry u/s. 202 Indian Penal Code, 1860 , vide order dated 10.1.2006, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint u/s. 203 Cr.P.C. holding that no any criminal case was made out. The opposite party No. 2 moved before the court of Sessions Judge in revision the same was allowed vide order dated 26.5.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-XII. Patna in Cr. Revision No. 91 of 2006 and remitted back the case for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the court of Judicial Magistrate took cognizance vide impugned order.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order and submitted that the allegation contained in complaint does not disclose any ingredients of criminal offence. It is an out and out of civil dispute. This criminal prosecution is malicious and misuse of process of the court. It is further submitted that the money was paid only for 2 kathas of land and. accordingly after Boards decision. 2 kathas land was allotted to the opposite party No. 2 and a lease deed was also executed in respect of the same in the year 1986. The lease was s also accepted by the opposite party No. 2. No protest was made at that very time. It is further submitted that the opposite party No. 2 has also moved before the Registrar Cooperative Society through case bearing Case No. 165 of 2004 which is still pending. He has also denied that the plot of opposite party No. 2 has ever been re-transferred to any other person or society.

6. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the papers filed by them. I am of the opinion that the allegation do not disclose any ingredient of criminal offence of breach of trust. The dispute appears to be of a civil nature and the matter is also pending before a competent Cooperative Society Court. In such circumstances filing of the criminal case is apparently misuse of the process of the court. It has been filed with ulterior and obligue motive.

7. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances this application is allowed and the impugned order of cognizance dated 19.9.2006 is hereby quashed.