The dispute over land title should be resolved in a civil suit, and the actions of the accused must meet the legal definition of forgery and cheating under the Indian Penal Code.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and for the State.

2. The case of the petitioners is that in the first information report was lodged on 18.6.2003. After investigation the case was not found true, however before the submission of the final form itself the complainant had filed a protest petition. The protest petition is also annexed as Annexure-3 to this application. The allegations by the Opposite Party No. 2 are that he is the owner of Khata No. 105, Khesara No. 175 measuring 1 acre 28 decimals which he had purchased from Maqbool Ashraf son of Late Mahmud Ahashan. The further allegation is that two persons namely Md. Abdul Raquib and Md. Fazal Rahman had sold plot no. 175 to one Mahendra Prasad, and Chandeshwar Prasad had identified the purchaser. It is alleged by the complainant that these persons have committed forgery and wrongly sold of that land in question which actually belongs to the Opposite Party. After the protest petition was filed, witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant who have supported the allegations made in the protest petition-cum-complaint petition in which it is said that the land which has been sold by Md. Abdul Raqib and Fazal Rahman who are accused nos. 1 and 2 to accused no. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the Title Suit No. 63 of 2003 has been filed by the complainant Md. Gulam Sarvar and others n which the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 are as the defendants no. 1, 2 and 3. The complainant has made prayer in the suit which is as follows:

"(a) It be declared that the sale deed dated 31.8.2001 executed by principal defendant Nos. 1 & 2 first set in favour of principal defendant No. 3 second set in respect of an area of 34 and 1/4 decimals described in schedule No. 11 of plaint of Thana No. 166 Tauzi No. 8876/214 Khata No. 105 Khesra No. 176 situated in village Bazidpore, PS. & Distt.-Sheikhpura as well as the sale deed dt. 31.5.2003 executed by principal defendant No. 3 second set in respect of the aforesaid 34 and 1/4 decimals of land as described in schedule No. Ill on the plaint in favour of principal defendant No. 4 third set as illegal without consideration inoperative, showy, null and void and it was never acted upon.

(b) The principal defendant No. 4 third set be restrained by passing a temporary order of injunction from transforming alienating and changing the nature of the suit property within the final disposal of the suit.

(c) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs against principal defendant Nos. 1 to 4.

(d) Other relief or reliefs be awarded in favour of plaintiffs against the defendant Nos. 1 to 4."

3. The land described in the sale deed dated 31.8.2001 which are subject matter of the suit are the same lands and the sale deed is also the same for which the complaint-cum-protest petition has been instituted.

4. The Opposite Party claims that the title of land is derived from Most. Sogra wife of Ramzan Ahmad. The land in question were described as Gair Maurza Mallick and were in possession of Sogra who was the Mallick. Whereas according to the Opposite Party there is another lady called Sogra W/o Maqbool who had one daughter Mohmmadan who was a raiyat. Mohmmadan had 3 sons and one daughter and the petitioner are the grandsons of Mohmmadan. It is the claim of the Opposite Party that the vendors has shown the source of title from Sogra wife of Abdul Ghaffar, as such the petitioners claim that only the civil court can decide as to who is the actual owner of the suit premises and whether the sale deed is validly executed document and whether the vendors had title to sell the land. Unless the title is decided this court cannot hold or decide that the sale deed was obtained by cheating.

5. The Opposite Party on the other side has filed a counter affidavit in which he has stated that he is the actual owner of the land in question.

6. The Opposite Party also claims that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have admitted in the sale deed execute