The court emphasized the importance of establishing a strong suspicion of the accused's guilt at the initial stage of framing a charge, and the need for circumspection in invoking the power to quash criminal proceedings.

ORDER

Anant Bijay Singh, J. - The instant criminal miscellaneous application has been preferred by the four petitioners being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 04.03.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 246 of 2014, passed by the learned Session Judge, Deoghar, whereby and where under the order dated 10.10.2014 rejecting the petition of the petitioners filed under section 239 CR.P.C, 1973 passed by learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar passed in connection with petition filed by the petitioners under section 239 Cr.P.C , 1973(arising out of Deoghar P.S. Case No. 394 of 2006 dated 02.12.2006 under sections 420, 467, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. No. 1069 of 2006 has been affirmed.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the instant case has arisen on the basis of a petition filed by the complainant being complaint Case No. 826 of 2006 which was referred to the police station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C , 1973and subsequently, Deoghar P.S. Case No. 394 of 2006 dated 02.12.2006, under sections 420, 467, 427, has been registered alleging inter alia that one M/s Dhandhaniya Brothers Pvt. Ltd, Company acquired two storied building No. 170 , Ward No. 2, Plot No. 698 at Jasidih, Deoghar in the year, 1957 through a registered sale deed from its rightful legal owners. The said properly known as ''Dhandhaniya Kothi''.

It is further alleged that complainant/informant, an authorised agent of the company came to know from local people and newspapers that some miscreants in collusion with local influential persons and administrative officers are making attempt to fraudulently dispose of the above property and a representation was submitted to the Government authorities and notices were also published in the local newspapers. Later on the informant/O.P. No. 2 came to know that a portion of property has been sold to ten purchasers through registered sale deeds on the basis of no objection certificate issued by Circle Officer, Jasidih, Deoghar and on enquiry, it was further revealed that the vendors and vendee conspired amongst themselves and with some unknown persons to chit and dishonestly induce delivery of property of informant, committed mischief by causing damage to the property by making false and forged document. On the basis of these allegations the instant case has been lodged.

3. It appears that police after investigation submitted final form being Final Form No. 90 of 2011 under section 407, 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners herein on 02.03.2011. Thereafter, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar under order dated 21.04.2011 took cognizance under section 420, 467, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was transferred to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar for trial and disposal.

4. It appears that during trial a petition has been filed under section 239 of the Cr.P.C , 1973on behalf of the petitioners in the Court of learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar who under order dated 10.10.2014 has rejected the petition preferred under sections 239 of the Cr.P.C , 1973thereafter the aforesaid order dated 10.10.2014 was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 246 of 2014 before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar who by a detailed order rejected the criminal revision application and affirmed the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to criminal miscellaneous application has submitted :

"11. That the petitioners humbly submit that the petitioners are purchasers of land by power of Attorney Holder, namely, Raj Kishore Chodhary, who got the said power of attorney from the adopted son of late Hemedra Sekhar Rai and Usha Rani Rai namely, Sandeep Kumar Rai.

12. That the petitioners humbly submit that for the same cause of action one Title Suit vide Title Suit No. 150 of 2006 for cancellation of sale deeds is also pending in the Court