The central legal point established in the judgment is that the intention of the accused persons and the nature of the allegations in the complaint are crucial in determining the applicability of criminal liability under the Indian Penal Code.

AMRESHWAR SAHAY, J.

( 1 ) THE prayer of the petitioner in this application is for quashing the order dated 22-1-2003 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Cr. Rev. No. 53 of 2002 whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the said revision application and set aside the order dated 29-1-2002 taking cognizance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar under Section 420/120b of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, who in the complainant, filed complaint case being P. C. R. case No. 32 of 2002 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar against the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. It was alleged in the complaint petition that on being misrepresented by the opposite party No. 2 that they were exclusive owner of the land measuring 2600 square fit of plot No. 407 situated at Mauza Shyamganj in the town of Deoghar. The petitioner approached the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 offered to purchase the said land. The accused persons showed him the map of the land. It was alleged that believing on the statements of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of the aforesaid land with opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and also paid Rs. 30,000. 00 by way of advance and it was agreed that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 would execute the deed of sale on 16-3-1998. It was further alleged that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 promised that they would get signature of other co-sharers of the deed. It was further alleged that in spite of repeated demand and request made by the petitioner, the accused persons did not register the sale deed and waited the same one or other pretext. The petitioner, therefore, alleged that he has been cheated by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 as he was indicated to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 who had the intention to cheat the petitioner. The petitioner also sent Advocates notice to the accused persons and demanded the execution of the sale deed but they did not execute the sale deed though they admitted the receipt of the advance money of Rs. 30,000. 00 and also promised to execute the sale deed.

( 3 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant on solemn affirmation. No witness was examined on behalf of the complainant and only on the basis of the statements of the complainant the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, by a well reasoned order dated 29-1-2002 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 420/20b of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and issued summons for their appearance.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order dated 29-1-2002 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 moved before the Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Cr. Rev. No. 53 of 2002. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 22-1-2002, after hearing the parties, allowed the revision application and set aside the order taking cognizance holding that the present case related to solely to the agreement of sale of a land and liability, if any, of the accused persons was of civil nature. The learned Sessions Judge, relied on decision in the case of Deepali Devi v. State of Jharkhand i. e. Cr. Misc. No. 1338 of 2000.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the complainant/petitioner has filed this present application.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed illegality in setting aside the order taking cognizance holding that the liability of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 was only of a civil nature. He further submits that from the facts of the present case the liabilities of the O. P. Nos. 2 and 3 were both of civil and criminal nature and therefore, both civil and criminal proceeding can run simultaneously. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of Trisuns Chemical I