The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a controversy between parties is of a civil nature and is already under adjudication in a civil court, the continuation of criminal proceedings may amount to an abuse of process of law.

Akhilesh Chandra, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners in all the three cases, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Counsel representing the informant. Since all the three petitions arise out of one case, they have been heard together and being disposed of by composite order.

2. The relevant facts for consideration is that one Janaki Devi was undisputed owner of the subject matter of the proceeding who executed two registered sale deeds for her property having an area of 3 Kathas 9 Dhoors respectively on 16.03.2001 and 17.03.2001 in favour of opposite party No. 2 on payment of consideration. The informant further averted that in the house in question Chandeshwari Prasad Singh, deceased father of petitioner No. 3 in Cr. Misc. No. 9336/2007 was a tenant who assured to vacate the house within a short period and he along with other petitioners persuaded the informant to enter into transaction as the property in question is free from any encumbrance and dispute but after purchase and mutation in the names of the purchaser/informant with respect to said property Late Chandeshwari Prasad Singh started avoiding eviction and further in collusion with each other got an antedated agreement for sale of same property prepared in his favour purported to be under signature of vendor of the informant but as alleged in pen and writing of his son petitioner No. 3 on anti dated stamp paper provided by non-petitioner Md. Moinuddin the Stamp Vendor and the informant further averted that purposely to grab money from him he was inspired by all such persons to enter into transaction and subsequently deed of agreement was brought into existence. On such assertions Buxar Nagar P.S. Case No. 105/2001 was instituted on 09.06.2001 for the offence under Section 407, 468, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Wherein, as it appears after investigation initially charge sheet was submitted against three persons Chandeshari Prasad Singh, Janaki Devi and her husband, keeping the investigation pending and subsequently supplementary charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners besides one non-petitioner i.e. Stamp Vendor. Here, it would not be out of place to mention that prior to submission of charge sheet and order taking cognizance besides the instant application bearing Cr. Misc. No. 34373/2005, Cr. Misc. No. 40577/2005 have been filed seeking quashing of entire First Information Report and subsequently Cr. Misc. No. 9336/2007 has also been filed by the three petitioners seeking quashing of order dated 25.11.2005 passed by Sri Gopal Jee, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar, in G.R. No. 609/2001 Tr. No. 2111/2006 in connection with Buxar Town P.S. Case No. 105/2001, taking cognizance for the offence under Section 407, 468, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is also admitted position that Chandeshwari Pd. Singh has already filed Title Suit No. 105/2001 in the court of Sub-Judge, 1st, Buxar, against the common vendor Janaki Devi as well as said purchaser the informant and his brother seeking decree for specific performance of the contract and transfer of the land in his favour alleging that the purchasers had full knowledge of the earlier deed of agreement to sale whereas the purchasers i.e. informant have also filed a suit for eviction bearing 3/2004 in the court of Sub-judge, 1st Buxar, against all the heirs of deceased Chandeshwari Prasad Singh in whose name alleged deed of agreement for sale appears standing that means there are altogether two suits filed before one competent court i.e. 1st Sub-Judge, Buxar, wherein the matters relating to execution of the deeds and allied are to be critically examined and decision is to be arrived at.

4. On basis of the above facts and circumstances, which also finds mentioned in case diary, learned Counsel for the petitioners made almost similar submission that there is absolutely no justification in initiation of a criminal case wherein the allegation is of