The main legal point established was that criminal prosecution should not be used as a tool to settle civil disputes, and the distinction between civil and criminal wrongs should be carefully considered.

1. It is surprising that counter-affidavit/rejoinder/supplementary counter-affidavit etc. have been filed by the parties for unjustifiable reason and the parties seem to have deviated from the main issue involved in the present case i.e. as to whether the order dated 04.09.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi, by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, is liable to be quashed or not?

2. The short facts of the case are that the Opposite Party No. 2 namely Hari Kishore Sinha had filed a Complaint Case No. 1262 of 2013 (C) of 2013 before the court of learned C.J.M. Sitamarhi against the petitioners herein and others, inter-alia, alleging therein that the father of the complainant namely late Ram Prasad Mahto and late Indrajeet Mahto were brothers and on 24.09.1971 their cousin grand-father late Jingur Mahto had given them 26 acres 11 decimals of land by Will. The said Jhingur Mahto had then died on account of illness on 21.10.1971. The father of the complainant and late Indrajeet Mahto, in the year 1977, with a view to prove the will had filed a case before the District Judge, Muzaffarpur bearing Testamentary Case No. 1 of 1977 and during the course of the proceedings of the said case, petitioner No. 4 and her sister late Pano Devi who were daughters of late Jhingur Mahto, had appeared before the court and certified that the said Will was made in a proper manner, hence, had prayed that the said Will be declared as the last Will of late Jhingur Mahto, which had been made in favour of the father of the complainant and late Indrajeet Mahto. In the year 1979, the father of the complainant, namely Ram Prasad Mahto had died, hence in the aforesaid testamentary case the name of the three sons of late Ram Prasad Mahto, namely, petitioner no. 1 herein, the complainant and the witness no. 1, namely, Jai Kishore Mahto were substituted. During the course of hearing of the aforesaid case, the accused persons including the petitioners herein had conspired and filed a case with a view to oust the claim of the complainant and witness no. 2 namely Jai Kishore Mahto had executed two sale deeds. The petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 are alleged to have connived with the Circle Officer and the revenue worker and had fraudulently got mutation of the said land done in favour of one Anandi Prasad Singh and his father vide Mutation Case No. 83 of 2004-05 and 84 of 2004-05. It has been further alleged that the petitioners herein had, with a view to grab the share of the complainant in the aforesaid land, filed a Title Suit No. 67 of 2002 dated 22.5.2002 and subsequently had obtained a compromise decree in their favour. The aforesaid facts were not disclosed in the Testamentary Case No. 1 of 1977/3 of 2005, which further goes to show the bad intention on the part of the accused persons. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the Opposite Party No. 2 had prayed for taking cognizance and punishing the accused persons. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi by an order dated 4.9.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 1262 of 2013 (Trial No. 3607 of 2014) has been pleased to find that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners herein and other accused persons under Sections 465, 120B, 466 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The aforesaid order dated 04.09.2014 has been challenged in the present proceedings.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present case is purely a case of civil dispute and the allegations levelled in the complaint petition do not disclose commission of any cognizance offence. It is further submitted that the present litigation, at the behest of the Opposite Party No. 2, is malicious.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that the deed of Will has already been authenticated by the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2006 passed in the aforesa