The central legal point established in the judgment is that allegations must disclose an offence under the relevant section of the Penal Code, and disputes of a civil nature do not give rise to criminal liability.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as Code) has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.3.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya in Cr. Rev. No. 9/ 2005 by which he has set aside the order dated 3.1.2005 passed by Sri R.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 736/2004 corresponding to Trial No. 612/2004 wherein the learned Magistrate had dismissed the complaint finding no prima facie case u/s 420 of the Penal Code made against the petitioners. There is further prayer in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners that consequent to the revisional order dated 7.3.06 Sri S.K. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya has passed order dated 1.11.2006 taking cognizance against the petitioners and therefore the same be also quashed.

3. It appears that O.P. No. 2/ complainant, Kumar Bikramendra Pratap Singh filed complaint case no. 736/04 on 8.7.2004 in the Court of C.J.M., Gaya with the allegations that the accused persons/petitioners belonged to a prosperous family of Ranchi and accused no. 1 Sanwarmal Budhia was introduced to the complainant by one of his closed friends named, Paras Nath Dubey in the year 1995. The accused no.1, Sanwarmal Budhia in order to sell his property called as Lal Kothi and a piece of adjoining land measuring about 54 decimals situated at Mohallah Gaiwal Bigha near Circuit House, Gaya approached complainant and his friend Birendra Kumar Singh at Gaya in the month of December, 1997. He informed that the property being 8.75 acre in area including Lal Kothi was purchased by his elder brother Atmaram Budhia through a registered sale deed in the year 1948 from Kumar Amar Singh son of Captain Maharaj Kumar Gopal Sharan Singh of Tekari and after mutual partition in the Budhia family 8.20 acres were sold and the balance 54 decimals was gifted to accused nos. 2, 3 and 4, that is the petitioners, by registered deed of gift in the year 1972. He further informed that the petitioners have authorised him to sell the property by executing general power of attorney. Accused No. 1 also showed certified copy of the documents relating to the title, mutation and partition of the same in the Budhia family. On 27.12.97 accused no.1 agreed to sale the aforesaid property on his behalf and on behalf of the petitioners to Sri Birendra Kumar Singh who is the complainants friend at the complainants house at the rate of 1.50 lac per Katha and received a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs from Ashwini Kumar Singh who is nephew of Birendra Kumar Singh. It is further said that in January, 2000 the accused no.1 again requested Sri Birendra Kumar Singh to pay a sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs in advance for his daughters marriage but he refused and stated that he wanted to make payment of the remaining amount at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. Accused No.1 then approached the complainant and upon his advice Birendra Kumar Singh paid a sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs to accused no.1 against a receipt on 8.2.2000. It is alleged that even after lapse of months, the accused persons did not turn up to execute the sale deed then legal notice was given and ultimately Birendra Kumar Singh filed title suit no. 124/2001-308/2000 against all the accused persons which is pending before Subordinate Judge, 2nd, Gaya for specific performance of contract for execution and registration of sale deed.

4. It is alleged that accused Pushpa Devi and Gita Devi appeared in the title suit and filed their written statement stating therein that accused no.1 was not holder of their power of attorney and had no right to enter into negotiation on their behalf and had not been authorised by them to receive any amount as advance. It is thus said that accused persons made false representation before the complainant and cheated him by Rs. 3.00 lacs which is an offence u/s 420 of the Penal Code.

5. It appears that complainant was examined o