Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In this application the petitioners has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Manjhiaon P.S Case no. 133 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. no. 1821 of 2011 including the order dated 07.07.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-VII, Garhwa, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under section 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution story as would arise from the written report on behalf of informant is that the informant and other co-sharers owned and possessed the ancestral property in village Bidanda, which was managed and controlled by his elder brother i.e. is the petitioner no. 1. It has also been alleged that that the petitioner no. 1 transferred 40-50 acres land of village Bedanda being the joint family property to several villagers on consideration of Rs 60-70 lacs claiming the same to be his own, and thereby causing loss to the other co-sharers. It has further been alleged that through one of the Sale Deed no. 5143 of 2006, the petitioner no. 1 transferred the joint property to the purchaser and on being queried upon, the petitioner no. 1 became infuriated.

4. After investigation, police has submitted charge sheet against the petitioners on 30th June, 2012 and thereafter learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-VII, Garhwa, by order dated 7th July, 2012 was pleased to take cognizance for the offence punishable under section 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations made in the First Information Report does not constitute any offence punishable under section 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code as ingredients necessary for constituting such offence is deception from the very inception. It has also been submitted that even assuming the allegations made in the F.I.R. to be true even then no case under section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out as there is no allegations of deception, or dishonest inducement to the informant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon judgments in the case of Devendra & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 495 and Mohammed Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 [: 2009 (4) JLJR (SC) 75].

7. Learned counsel for the State while relying on the counter affidavit filed by the State has submitted that from para-110 of the case diary it revealed that the petitioners had prepared fake documents and on the basis of forged power of attorney, they used to sell the landed property.

8. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that since the allegations made in the first information report has been found to be true, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners pursuant to which cognizance was taken and in absence of any illegality, in the order taking cognizance, no interference is warranted by this Court in the criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioners.

9. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the property in question was the joint family property belonging to joint family and the petitioners being co-sharers were precluded from selling off part of the property without informing the other co-sharers and the entire case on the part of petitioners revealed a criminal conspiracy in order to cheat the other co-sharers. It has also been submitted that the investigation has revealed about the forged and fake documents used by the petitioners while entering into the realm of selling of the property and in such circumstances also a criminal offence is clearly made out against the petitioners.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the entire records I find that in the written report the allegations against the petitioners who happens to be elder brother of the informant is that by keeping the other co-sharers