Point of Law : Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. G. Taloh, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Ms. N. Danggen, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing of compliant case No. 10/2022 under Sections 419/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh and the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.

3. It is stated that the compliant case No.10/2022 was filed by the respondent No.2 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, West Siang under Sections 419/420/468/471 IPC against the present petitioner. The gist of the content is that the respondent No.2 owns a Wet Rice Cultivation (WRC) field measuring 22,500 Sq.mtrs near Pakam village. In the year 2001, he sold about 300 Sq.mtrs from 22,500 Sq.mtrs to the petitioner for Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only), although no documents regarding the transaction was executed between them, however, he had put his signature on a blank paper. Subsequently, one Kartum Loyi and Karyom Loyo lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo informing that they had purchased the land from petitioner No.1 for Rs. 1,30,000/-(Rupees One Lakhs thirty thousand only) on 31.01.2004 and thus, praying for restraining the respondent No.2 from encroaching and disturbing their peaceful possession. The respondent No.2 submitted his reply against the complaint filed before the Deputy Commission, Aalo and stated that he never sold any plot of Wet Rice Cultivation (WRC) land to the petitioner. Thereafter, on receiving notice on 05.11.2020 from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent No.2 filed an RTI and accordingly, it has come to notice that entire Wet Rice Cultivation (WRC) land was sold to Shri Karyom Loyi for a consideration of Rs. 1,30,000/-on the strength of a forged sale agreement dated 20.07.1994. Thereafter, he filed an application dated 22.02.2022 before the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo wherein, it was informed that the Office of Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the title dispute and accordingly, advised for approaching the appropriate forum. Thereafter, the compliant case was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo accordingly, after examining the complainant along with one witness took cognizance under Sections 420/468/471 of the IPC vide order dated 27.09.2022.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 is totally false and based on concocted facts and he has also converted a civil dispute about the ownership of land into a criminal proceeding by misusing the judicial process. In the year 1994, the respondent No.2 had sold his Wet Rice Cultivation (WRC) land and Jhum land to the petitioner for consideration of Rs.1,05,000/-(Rupees one lakhs five thousand only) and sale agreement was executed on 20.07.1994. The sale agreement was also signed by the respondent No.2 along with 4 witnesses and counter signed by Circle Officer-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Along, West Siang District, Along. Further, it is stated that the Wet Rice Cultivation (WRC) land mentioned in the sale deed dated 20.07.1994 and the complaint case made by the respondent No.2 is for the same plot of land. Therefore, the plot of land which is the crux of the complaint, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo was already sold in the year 1994. But after 28 years, the respondent No.2 is attempting to give it a criminal colour by misusing the criminal machinery with his malafide intention. The respondent No.2 misled the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo and for which the cogniza