A complaint must clearly disclose a cognizable offence; failing this, the court can quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse and ensure justice.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 23.09.2013 as passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, whereby cognizance has been taken in connection with Complaint Case No. 3578 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 , 468 and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant Opposite Party No.2 namely, Rana Pratap Singh has alleged that he had purchased a land through registered sale deed in the name of his wife namely, Mani Mala Devi on 28.12.1993 at Mauza Maharajganj bearing Khata No. 184, Khesra No. 128, Thana No. 238 Rakwa 2 Kattha 7 Dhur 15 Dhurki and also enjoying possession. It is alleged that the accused persons have engaged their business of forged transaction of land since long time. It is further alleged that accused persons had made false power of attorney in connivance with a forged lady in the name of the wife of the complainant/O.P. No.2 on 10.06.2008. The complainant further alleged that on the basis of aforesaid forged power of attorney, accused persons sold out the land to co-accused namely, Arvind Kumar Yadav and in this forged work accused No. 2, 3 and 4 (the petitioner) helped the accused No. 1. When the complainant came to know about this, he asked to Arvind Kumar Yadav, who replied that accused No. 1, sold it to him against duly paid consideration amount. It is further alleged that when the complainant/O.P. No. 2 went to house of accused No.1 and asked about this matter, he was abused by them and also threatened to face dire consequences.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint and considering the statement of inquiry witnesses and also statement of complainant on his solemn affirmation (S.A.), the learned 2^nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 420, 468 & 34 of the I.P.C.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that from bare perusal of the complaint petition, no prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner, as a very general and omnibus allegation available against him as to assist main accused namely, Gautam Kumar Gaurav along with co-accused Nikhil Kumar Singh and Raju Singh. It is submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature which was given unnecessary criminal colour just to harass the petitioner out of oblique motive.

6. It is further submitted that the complaint in issue is not appears supported by affidavit of the complainant and on this score alone, the cognizance order is liable to be quashed/set-aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Usha Chakraborty and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. [2023 SCC Online SC 90]; Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ 2015 (6) SCC 287 ] and State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335].

7. Despite of service of notice, which served personally upon O.P. No. 2, none appeared on his behalf to join the present proceeding.

8. It would further be apposite to reproduce para 6, 7, 8 & 10 of Usha Chakraborty case (supra), which reads as under:

"6. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. this Court held:-

12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a crimi