The court found prima facie material to support the cognizance taken against the accused persons and did not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of cognizance.

ORDER :

Heard Counsel for the petitioners and Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 as well as Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioners in this application have prayed for quashing the order dated 01.09.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P.Case No. 1111/2005 whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 120B and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, has been taken against the petitioners and they have been summoned to face the trial.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners informs at the outset that by order dated 06.12.2006, the proceeding was stayed till the appearance of the Opposite Party No. 2. The Opposite Party No. 2 had filed his appearance in January, 2007 and thereafter the interim order of stay was not extended.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would assail the impugned order of cognizance on the ground that the same is bad in law as well as in facts and has been passed without application of judicial mind and without considering the facts of the case in proper perspective. Elaborating his arguments, learned Counsel would explain that the dispute essentially is in the nature of civil dispute between the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the complainant namely the Opposite Party No. 2 and the grievance of the Opposite Party No. 2 is in respect of the act of cancellation of the registered sale deed which the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had initially executed in favour of the complainant in respect of a land which was sold to him. Learned Counsel submits further that during the pendency of the case, the complainant has compromised the case with the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and has acknowledged the possession of the land which was taken over by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 after having received the entire amount of consideration which he had initially given to the said accused persons. Learned Counsel explains that the petitioner No. 1 in the present application is the transferee of the land pursuant to the sale deed executed in his favour by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore no offence under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. can be made out against the petitioner No. 1. As regards the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, learned Counsel submits that the offence under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. is also not made out against these petitioners in view of the fact that admittedly these petitioners had no role whatsoever to play either in execution of the original sale deed or cancellation of the same or in the execution of the subsequent sale deed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is further submitted that in the light of the compromise effected between the complainant and the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the trial is not likely to result in the conviction of the accused persons and therefore the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the accused persons, would amount to an abuse of the process of court.

Learned Counsel submits further that accused No. 1 has since died during the pendency of the proceeding and it is his son namely the accused No. 2 with whom compromise has been effected by the complainant.

5. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, on the other hand, would submit by reading out the impugned order of cognizance that there is no impropriety or illegality in the order in view of the fact that is has been passed after going through the averments contained in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant and that of his witnesses who were examined in course of enquiry conducted by the learned court below. Learned Counsel informs further that the offence u/s 323 I.P.C. is squarely made out against the present set of accused persons in the light of the allegations that they had visited the place of occurrence and after indulging in overt acts of violence against the complainant, had forcibly dispossessed him from the land which the complainant had validly purchased earlier from the land holder.

6. I have heard Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials available on record as well