There must be a prima facie case for a cognizance order; if facts only reveal a civil dispute, the criminal proceedings cannot proceed.

JUDGMENT :

(JITENDRA KUMAR, J. )

The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, under Section 482 Cr.PC, impugning the order dated 04.01.2016, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnia in Complaint Case No. 74 of 2013, whereby learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the accused persons, including the petitioner and directed the office to issue summons against them.

Prosecution Case

2. The sum and substance of the allegation as emerging from the Criminal Complaint bearing No. 74 of 2013, filed by O.P. No. 2 herein is that the parcel of land bearing Khata No. 299, Khesra No. 1198 measuring 29 decimal belongs to the complainant/O.P. No. 2 herein. It is further alleged that in regard to the same land, co-accused Jagdish Prasad Poddar executed the power of attorney in favour of co-accused person viz., Arun Uraon. Mithilesh Singh and Naresh Kumar Singh were witnesses to the execution of this power of attorney. It is further alleged that some part of that land was sold by power of attorney holder Arun Uraon in favour of co-accused Ram Pukar Rai, who is petitioner herein. It is further alleged that the petitioner herein/Ram Pukar Rai sold the land to co-accused Raj Kumar Chaudhary. Hence, the accused persons, including the petitioner, have committed forgery and played fraud with the complainant. The sale of deed and the power of attorney have been registered in Purnia Registry office.

Factual background

3. After filing of the complaint, the complainant and one inquiry witness, Anant Kumar Singh, who is brother of the complainant/Santosh Kumar Singh were examined under Section 200 Cr.PC. During the inquiry, it has been stated that the land in question belongs to them, because the same was purchased by their father. However, in regard to that land, one Jagdish Prasad Poddar has executed power of attorney in favour of Arun Uraon and the same was registered in Purnia Registry office and thereafter, Arun Uraon has executed the sale deed in favour of one Ravindra Rai.

4. On the basis of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses during the inquiry, the impugned order was passed taking cognizance and issuing summons against the accused persons, including the petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. However, nobody is present on behalf of O.P. No. 2 despite opportunity.

Submission on behalf of the Petitioner

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has purchased the land in question from one Arun Uraon, who is the power of attorney holder in regard to the land from co-accused Jagdish Prasad Poddar, after payment of due consideration amount and hence, there is no question for committing any offence by the petitioner. He further submits that even going by the alleged facts and circumstances, only dispute which arises is regarding the title to the land in question. As per the complainant, the land bel