NILU AGRAWAL, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioners seek quashing of the order of cognizance dated 20.01.2014, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah in Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 801/12 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471, 327, 506, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the complainant-informant is that the accused persons Nawal Kishore Rai, Bishwanath Raut @ Bishwanath Prasad, Mohan Raut and Chandra Shekhar Raut in conspiracy with each other had sold out his land. The allegation made by the complainant/informant is that on 11.09.1980 he purchased 6 dhurs of land pertaining to Khata No. 23/33, Khesra No. 144 at Banuchapar, P.S. Bettiah, West Champaran. Petitioner No. 2 Bishwanath Raut @ Bishwanath Prasad was a deed writer and signatory to the said deed of purchase as witness. On 22.10.2010 petitioner no. 2 in conspiracy with petitioner nos. 3 and 4 had fraudulently executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner no. 1 Nawal Kishore Rai. Petitioner no. 1 was the purchaser whereas petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are vendors.

4. This Court by order dated 01.09.2014 prima facie finding that the documents of the relevant parties had been looked into by an independent agency, which had found the allegations to be false, observing that it was a bona fide land dispute between the parties, quashed the entire proceedings including the order of cognizance dated 20.01.2014.

5. The complainant-informant moved the Apex Court against the said order in Criminal Appeal No. 1698 of 2015, which was partly allowed on 14.12.2015 with the following order :

"….the High Court has not examined the role of Shri Bishwanath Raut @ Bishwanath Prasad. Therefore, we allow the appeal qua Bishwanath Raut. The High court shall examine Shri Bishwanath and shall take appropriate decision. So far as other parties are concerned, the order stands.

4. The High Court shall hear the parties on 15.01.2016.

5. In view of the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed. "

6. In view of the observation/order of the Apex Court the role of petitioner no. 2 Bishwanath Raut @ Bishwanath Prasad has to be examined. So far as the other three petitioners are concerned, the order of this Court stands.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner Bishwanath Raut @ Bishwanath Prasad submits that the matter is purely a civil dispute and the allegations made against petitioner Bishwanath Raut @ Vishwanath Prasad is totally false. He elucidates the history of the lands in question and submits that as per cadastral survey the land is part of the khatiyani land belonging to one Janki Tatwa and the total area of the land was 10 kathas 4 dhurs. The said Janki Tatwa had two sons, namely, Sitaram Das and Pargan Das, who after his death partitioned the said land in the year 1942 in the ratio of 5 kathas 2 dhurs respectively being share of the two sons. The said land on the eastern side fell in the share of Sitaram Das and an area of 5 kathas 2 dhurs from western side fell in the share of Pargan Das. The said Sitaram Das executed Rehan in favour of Baidnath Prasad on 19.11.1942 in which it has been mentioned that 5 kathas 2 dhurs was allotted in his share. The said Sitaram Das had four sons whereas Pargan Das had one son, namely, Ram Briksh Das. The four sons of Sitaram Das sold the entire land of 5 kathas 2 dhurs of land by executing a sale deed in different years to three different persons i.e. Laxmi Prasad, S/o Chhedu Ram, Sambhu Prasad, S/o Laxmi Prasad and Meera Devi, W/o Ram Chandra Prasad by three registered sale deed dated 21.07.1967, 21.08.1968 and 14.07.1969. Similarly son of Pargan Das, namely, Ram Briksh Das sold 1 katha of land to Deni Raut over Jamabandi No. 24, Khata No. 33, Khesra No. 144 under Municipal Holding No. 106 dated 10.10.1968. The said Deni Raut died leaving behind his three sons, namely, Bishwanath Raut @ Bishwanath Prasad (petitioner no. 2), Mohan Raut (petitioner no. 3) and Chandra Shekhar Raut (petitioner no. 4). T