The central legal point established in the judgment is that disputes over landed property should be resolved through civil action and not through criminal prosecution.

ABHIJIT SINHA, J.

1. The three Petitioners who along with others have been made to figure as accused in Complaint Case No. 2022 of 2006 have prayed for the quashing of Order dated, 24th April, 2007 passed therein by Sri Sahgir Alam, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siwan, whereby cognizance has been taken for offences under Sections 465 and 471 I.P.C.

2. Ramchandra Prasad, the Complainant, impleaded as Opposite party No. 2 herein, filed the aforesaid complaint stating that 10 Kathas, 15 Dhoors of Dih Basgeet land appertaining to Khata No. 614, Plot No. 4246 was jointly recorded in the name of Lal Bahadur Lal Rudar, Ragunath Lal, Sheonath Lal and Dwarika Sahay and that Dwarik Sahay died leaving behind two sons Raghunath Lal and Sheonath Lai and Lal Bahadur Lal Rudar during his life time used to live with the sons of his brother, Raghunath Lal and died issueless whereafter the entire property was managed by Raghunath Lal and Sheonath Lal. It is said that in the family partition the aforesaid land fell in the share of Sheonath Lal over which he constructed a house and Bathan and on the remaining portion grew vegetables etc.

3. It is alleged that on 19th November, 2006 he got information from one Ajay Rai that the accused persons were trying to capture the lands aforesaid by forging documents whereupon he went to Basantpur Sub Registry Office and obtained a sale deed dated, 10th October, 2006 which revealed that, the Petitioner No. 1 had executed a forged sale deed in respect of the lands of the Complainant aforesaid in favour of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.The Police refused to register a case, hence, the complaint.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that allegation of cheating could not have been levelled by the Complainant since it is the Accused Nos. 2 and 3 who having purchased the lands could have made such allegation of cheating as they had been made to purchase the lands which did not belong to the executant of the sale deed. It was further submitted that when the sale deed was executed by Vijaya Lakshmi as such there was no question of any impersonation on the part of the Petitioner No. 1 and allegation of fraud could also not be levelled against her.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further sought to submit that it is well settled principles of law that a vendor can not transfer any title or possession of property which he or she was not possessing. In this contest, it was submitted that even if the Complainant claimed the aforesaid lands as falling to his lot in the family partition he in no way is effected by the execution of sale deed by Petitioner No. 1 as she could not have transferred more than her title and possession.

6. It was further submitted that it would be apparent from the recital in the sale deed that Accused No.1 had inherited the said property by virtue of a decree passed in Title Suit No. 230 of 1936 as she happens to be a descendent of Mahavir Sharan Prasad Singh.The said decree was prepared on 24th March, 1943 and Schedule-G of the said decree is with regard to the land of Mahavir Sharan Prasad Singh which reveals that 10 Kathas, 15 Dhoors land of Khata No. 614, Plot No. 4246 was allotted in the share of Mahavir Sharan Prasad Singh, the father of Petitioner No. 1 and that by virture of final decree delivery of possession was effected to all co-sharers.

7. The learned Counsel further sought to submit that in respect of the lands in question a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. PC. was initiated by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in between the husband of Petitioner No. 1 and the present Complainant and as the Complainant failed to comply with the directions of the Court to file documents in his favour the rule was vacated vide Order dated, 22nd November, 1985 against first party and it was made absolute against the second party, i.e., the Complainant and other