The judgment establishes the principle that a criminal court may entertain a dispute with civil implications if the complaint alleges sufficient evidence of criminal conduct, and that the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised in exceptional cases.

Rakesh Kumar, J.

1. Two Petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated, 21st February, 2003 passed by (earned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gopalganj in Trial No. 158 of 2003 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1094 of 1998 whereby the learned Magistrate disposed of the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the Accused persons and fixed the case for framing of the charge.

2. Short fact of the case is that, Opposite Party No. 2 on 24th June, 1998 filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj vide Complaint Case No. 1094 of 1998 arraying 7 persons including two Petitioners as Accused for commission of the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that Petitioner No. 2 was married with daughter (Petitioner No. 1) of one Gajadhar Bhagat who was not having any male child. He was having only two daughters. In his life time, Gajadhar Bhagat gifted his property to the son of both the Petitioners, namely, Mahanth Bhagat by deed of gift dated, 28th January, 1985. At the time of execution of deed of gift, the son of both the Petitioners was minor, and on his behalf her mother and father, both the Petitioners, came in possession over the gifted properties. It was alleged by the Complainant that in the year 1993 both the Petitioners approached the Complainant in presence of witnesses with a proposal to sell 4 Kathas of land from the gifted land. Since at the relevant time the son of the Petitioners namely, Mahanth Bhagat (Accused No. 3) was minor being his guardian, the said land was sold by Petitioners on consideration money of Rs. 14,000 through registered deed. The said sale deed was executed by Petitioner No. 1 being the guardian of her minor son namely, Mahanth Bhagat and Petitioner No. 2 executed the deed as a witness. Thereafter, the Complainant took the possession over the land in question and started to cultivate the same. However, on 19th May, 1998, both the Petitioners and Accused No. 6 Suresh Kumar Singh told the Complainant that the said land was of Accused Suresh Kumar Singh, in whose favour sale deed was executed and the Complainant was prevented from cultivating the said land. On enquiry, the Complainant came to know that, on 20th May, 1998, the son of both the Petitioners, namely, Mahanth Bhagat had transferred the land through registered sale deed in favour of one Suresh Kumar Singh, Accused No. 6. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, the complaint was filed against both the Petitioners, son of the Petitioners, Suresh Kumar Singh and also witnesses. After conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, and while the case reached to the stage of charge, discharge petition was filed by Accused persons. However, by order dated, 21st February, 2003, no favourable order was passed in favour of the Accused persons, and the learned Magistrate directed all the Accused persons including Petitioners to remain present for framing of the charge.

3. Aggrieved with the order dated, 21st February, 2003, whereby discharge petition filed by the Petitioners was disposed of and direction was issued for framing of the charge, both the Petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 10th December, 2003, notice was directed to be issued to Opposite Party No. 2, and in the meantime, it was directed that further proceeding in Court beiow shall remain stayed. On 31st August, 2004 the case was admitted for hearing, and it was directed that during the pendency of the application the interim order passed earlier will remain operative.The stay order is stiil continuing.

4. Sri Naresh Chandra Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that, from the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that, the dispute was out and out a civil dispute, for which, criminal