JUDGMENT :

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

2. The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following relief :

“That in the instant application, the prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 5-06-14/5-05-14 passed by the learned C.J.M. Motihari in Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 156/2000 corresponding to Tr. 4300/14 whereby and where under cognizance u/s 420, 467, 468 and 120 (B) of the I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioner and other co-accused.”

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that in connivance with other accused, who was the owner of the land in question, he has got the same registered in his name, even though it had already been bought by the opposite party no. 2 complainant earlier from the same land owner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that making the petitioner an accused is absolutely an abuse of the process of the Court as he is not a buyer of the land belonging to other co-accused. It was submitted that the owner had registered the land in question in favour of the petitioner and, thus, if at all, the owner had earlier registered the same land in favour of the opposite party no. 2, then the opposite party no. 2 cannot have grievance only against the owner of the land and not against the petitioner, who is the purchaser. It was submitted that the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner have direct link and further that it was not incumbent on the petitioner to find out as to whether the land which was bought by him from the land owner had been sold to any other person. Learned counsel submitted that the complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2, upon being sent to the police, resulted in institution of Motihari PS Case No. 156 of 2000 and after investigation, the police submitted final form treating it as civil dispute. However, learned counsel submitted that differing from the Final Form, the Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner without there being any material or justification for the same. It was further submitted that before the police, during investigation, the opposite party no. 2 has himself said that his grievance was basically with regard to demarcation and measurement and if the same had been done, there would not have been any dispute. Learned counsel further submitted that the land in question was bought by the petitioner on 25.11.1998 and he is coming in peaceful possession over the same after getting it mutated in the revenue records. It was submitted that if at all the opposite party no. 2 had bought the same land, he was required to mutate the same in his name before the revenue authorities, which he has not done. Learned counsel further submitted that even the sale deeds in favour of the opposite party no. 2 have not been brought on record before the Court below to show as to whether it was the same land which was bought by the opposite party no. 2 and is alleged to have been sold to the petitioner also.

5. Learned APP submitted that on the basis of materials collected during investigation, the Court has taken cognizance which does not require interference.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that he had bought the land on 31.10.1982 and 22.12.1989. He further submitted that the challenge being to the order taking cognizance, the Court below has done so on the basis of materials before it as was available from the police investigation itself, and the same is in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that earlier also the petitioner had moved the Court challenging the order of cognizance, which was passed earlier dated 03.08.2011 in Cr. Misc. No. 31896 of 2011, in which by order dated 05.03.2014, the matter was remitted to the Court below to examine the material to differ with the police report, and if he proposed to proceed with the case, differing with the police report, he may