PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, J.:–This is an application for quashing the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate – II, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Magistrate”) in Complaint Case No. 583 of 2017 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against petitioners under Section 417, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “I.P.C.”)

2. The complaint case, in brief, is that petitioner no. 2 Suraj Singh, who is gotiya of the complainant, got registered fraudulently sale-deed in the name of Dharmendra Yadav (petitioner no. 5) and other co-accused persons are witness to the sale-deed and thereby committed offence under Sections 417, 420 and 120(B) of the I.P.C. The learned Magistrate, after carefully perusing the complaint petition, has arrived at a prima facie conclusion against the accused persons (petitioners herein) that the offence under Sections 417, 420 and 120(B) of the I.P.C. is made out.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the present case is purely a civil dispute between the parties. Complainant and petitioners are gotiyas. For the same piece of land, the complainant has earlier filed a title suit, vide Title Suit No. 187 of 2017, on 31.10.2017 against petitioner no. 1 (Krishna Yadav) and petitioner no. 6 (Shyam Bihari Yadav), which is pending before the court of learned Sub-Judge I, Aurangabad. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 2 (Suraj Yadav) has also filed a title suit, vide Title Suit No. 227 of 2016, on 06.05.2016 i.e. prior to the complainant’s case, which is also pending before the court of Sub-Judge I, Aurangabad. It is next submitted that the present case has been filed only with a view to put pressure in T.S. No. 227 of 2016, filed from the petitioners’ side.

4. It is next submitted that in the present case, dispute is of civil nature and no ingredient of criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. It is settled law that when a document is executed by a person claiming a property, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document and hence, is not forgery.

5. It is next submitted that by merely alleging or showing that a person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he committed an offence punishable under the I.P.C. or any other law, unless that fraudulent act is specified to be an offence under the I.P.C. or other law.

6. It is lastly submitted that the averment, made in the complaint petition, if assumed to be true that petitioners have executed sale-deed by forging sale-deed in conspiracy with other co-accused persons, do not make out any offence under Sections 417, 420 and 120(B) of the I.P.C. and as such, order of cognizance under Sections 417, 420 and 120(B) of the I.P.C. is fit to be quashed. In support of the same, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2009 (4) PLJR (SC) 100 (Md. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar).

7. However, learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners by filing counter affidavit. It is urged on behalf of complainant/opposite party no. 2 that petitioners no. 1 and 6 have executed the sale-deed with respect to the piece of land situated under Khata No. 129 Plot No. 45 area 15 ¾ decimal plot no. 32 area 31 decimal plot no. 134 area 15 ¾ decimal in favour of petitioner no. 5, and petitioners no. 2, 3 and 7 are the witnesses of the said sale-deed.

8. It is further submitted that petitioners. no. 1 and 6 have illegally and arbitrary after committing fraud executed the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner no. 5, while petitioners no. 1 and 6 have no power with respect to the share of the complainant.

9. Lastly it is submitted that after examining the complainant / opposite party no. 2 on S.A. and other witnesses and after perusal of the S.A. of the complainant and enquiry of other witne