Hari Shankar Prasad, J.

1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as Code), has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 29.6.1999 passed in complaint (Official) Case No. 57 of 1999 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad took cognizance.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that O.P. No. 2 -Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad (Complainant) lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad stating inter alia therein that a proceeding under. Section 144, Cr PC being M.P. Case No. 409 of 1998 was started against the petitioners and one Nand Lal Sharma (witness in this case). In the proceeding, both parties appeared and filed their show-cause and also photocopy of their documents on 27.7.1998. On behalf of the petitioners, one photocopy of the registered partition deed No. 407 dated 14.8.1927 was filed but the other side suspected the genuineness of the documents, although translated version of the original documents in Hindi was placed before the Court for perusal and the Court allowed the first party to examine the documents. The Advocate claimed that translation is correct but suspected the genuineness of the document. Thereafter original document was returned to the petitioners-second party and a photocopy along with Hindi translation was retained and the case was disposed of.

3. On 3.8.1998 a petition was filed by the first party to the proceeding stating therein that a certified copy of the alleged deed No. 407 of 1927 has been secured from the Registration Office, Purulia, West Bengal on 30.7.1998 and the entire description of the said deed filed in the Court is totally different from the record maintained in the Registration Office. The deed No. 407 was registered on 12.2.1927 but it has been endorsed in Book No. 1, Vol No. X at Page Nos. 120 and 121, whereas the deed presented in the Court speaks Book No. 1, Vol No. VI, Page Nos. 266 and 267 and the parties are also different and the land in the column 18 is of Chandankiary in the sale deed whereas the deed produced before the Court relates to the land of Saraidhela as Partition deed. Therefore, M.P. Case No. 436 of 1998 was started under Section 340, Cr PC for holding inquiry. The notices were served and accused persons were directed to produced original document which was produced before the Court in course of hearing on 27.7.1998, which was returned to the accused persons. As many as 25 dates were allowed but original documents were not produced nor any justification was shown as to why a forged document has been filed.

4. On the said complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad registered complaint case No. 57 of 1998 against the petitioners under Sections 192/193/420/466/467/468/471, IPC (Annexure-1).

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the M.P. Case No. 409 of 1998, in course of O.P. No. 2 a final order was passed on 28.7.1998 vacating the rule was against Sri Nand Lal Sharma (first party in the said case) and made it absolute against the petitioners. The petitioners filed a revision before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad being Cr Revision No. 80 of 1998 and by order dated 13.11.1998 the learned Court was pleased to dismiss the revision being infructuous.

6. It was further pointed out that in relation to the same plot of land, Nand Lal Sharma filed a suit being Title Suit No. 82 of 1998 and also filed a petition for injunction with prayer to restrain the petitioners from going over the disputed land, but the prayer for injunction of the petitioners was rejected and the order of status quo was passed and earlier order was also vacated. It was further pointed out that as stated in the complaint petition, the learned S.D.M., Dhanbad initiated a case for inquiry under Section 340, Cr PC on the complaint made by the said Nand Lal Sharma and directed the petiti