RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.07.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Chatra in Complaint Case No. 401 of 2008 whereby cognizance of the offences for Sections 420/467/468/471/506/504 and 120-B of IPC has been taken against the petitioners. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Chatra whereby the revision filed by the petitioners being Cr. Revision No. 51 of 2013 has been dismissed.

2. The factual background of the case is that Complaint Case No. 401 of 2008 was filed by the complainant-O.P. No. 2 under Sections 420/467/468/469/471/506/504/120B of IPC alleging inter-alia that the ancestor of the complainant namely Prabhu Dayal Lal had purchased one anna share of the land from the landowner Basudeo Singh situated at Village-Pandari Kala by virtue of two registered sale deeds. Since the date of purchase, the ancestors of the complainant and after their death, the complainant has been in possession of the said land and paying rent of the same to the State Government. The petitioners along with others conspired and a deed of power of attorney of the said land was executed by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of the petitioner No. 2 wherein the petitioner No. 3 identified the executant-the petitioner No. 1. The petitioners agreed to sell the said land to other persons. When the complainant came to know about execution of the power of attorney, he sent Advocate’s notice to the petitioners, but no reply was given by them. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chatra vide order dated 04.07.2013, took cognizance of the offences and directed to issue summons against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2013, the petitioners filed revision being Cr. Revision No. 51 of 2013, which was dismissed on 25.02.2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on perusal of the complaint, the S.A. of the complainant and the statements of the enquiry witnesses, it would transpire that no criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 had executed the power of attorney in favour of the petitioner No. 2 with respect to his ancestral property and as such it does not constitute a prima-facie case for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/506/504 and 120-B of IPC against the petitioners. Even the allegation against the petitioner No. 3 that he had identified the petitioner No. 1 in the power of attorney, does not constitute a prima-facie case against him under the alleged offences of IPC, as he had not identified any wrong person. It is further submitted that the present matter purely involves a civil dispute for which no criminal liability can be fastened against the petitioners.

4. In support of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioners puts reliance on the following judgments:-

(i) Mohammad Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2009) 8 SCC 751

(ii) Deo Kumar Paswan @ Deo Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, 2018 (1) JLJR 326

(iii) Rajendra Prasad Gupta and Others vs. State of Jharkhand, 2014 (1) JLJR 159

5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that Basudeo Singh got one anna share in the said property according to the final decree of partition in P.S. Suit No. 9 of 1923. He sold his entire share to Munshi Prabhu Dayal Lal (the great grandfather of the complainant). The land was also mutated in his name and he paid the rent to the State Government till his death and thereafter his legal heir i.e. the complainant came in possession of the said land. Though the petitioner No. 1 has no concern with the said land, yet by playing fraud and falsely claiming to be the legal heir of Basudeo Singh, has executed the power of attorney in favour of the petitioner No. 2 namely Ran Vijay Singh and the executant was identified by the petitioner No. 3.

6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2, in s