Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. The present writ application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the CrPC’) has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.08.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No.1335 of 2012, whereby finding a prima facie case to be made out for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’), the petitioner and five others have been summoned to face trial.

3. The opposite party no.2 filed a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur vide Complaint Case No.1335 of 2012 on 19.08.2013.

4. In sum and substance the case of the complainant is that he was in peaceful possession of the land bearing Khata No.121, Khesra Nos.4006, 4003, 4073, 4091 and 4098. In spite of having knowledge of this fact, the accused Shambhu Rai sold the land belonging to the complainant to the petitioner under a conspiracy through a registered sale deed. He alleged that the accused persons had come to the house of the complainant in the month of January, 2011 and had pressurized the members of the family to sell the concerned land but the same was refused.

5. It is alleged that he came to know about the execution of the sale deed in January, 2012, whereupon a Panchayti took place in which the accused persons assured him to get the sale deed cancelled. However, no action was taken thereafter.

6. Hence, the complaint in question was filed on 09.08.2012.

7. The complainant supported his allegation in his statement made on oath and besides him, three other witnesses, who were examined in course of enquiry conducted under Section 202 of the CrPC also supported the allegations made in the complaint pursuant to which the aforesaid summoning order dated 19.08.2013 was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur, which is under challenge in the present application.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even on admitted facts of the case none of the ingredients of the offences alleged would be attracted against the petitioner, a bonafide purchaser of the land, in the present case. He submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to take notice of the fact that the complainant admitted that it was accused Shambhu Rai, who had executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and, thus, in any view of the matter, if a person having no title did transfer the right in favour of the petitioner, it was the petitioner who had been cheated and not the complainant. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another [(2009) 8 SCC 751].

9. He submitted that the accused Shambhu Rai, who had executed the sale deed by representing that he has good title over the land in question is none else, but the cousin of the complainant. He obtained consideration amount of Rs.5,65,000/- from the petitioner and the moment the petitioner came to know that he had been duped by the said Shambhu Rai, he filed a complaint on 16th July, 2012, which was immediately sent to the police by the learned Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under section 156(3) of the CrPC pursuant to which Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No.422 of 2012 dated 11.08.2012 has been instituted against Shambhu Rai for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 466, 467 and 468 of the IPC.

10. He submitted that the instant complaint petition has been filed in retaliation to the complaint filed by the petitioner on 16.07.2012. It is also contended that the dispute, if any, is of civil nature and since the matter relates to ownership of the land and subsequent execution of the sale deed by a person, who claims himself to be the owner of the property in ques