JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 3, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar No. 2 assisted by Mr. Soumitra Baroi, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent these matters have been heard.

3. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No. 41 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 707 of 2018 arising out of C/1 Case No. 3510 of 2017 registered for the offence under sections 420/467/468/471/120B/504/34 of the Indian Penal code including order taking cognizance dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur.

4. A written complaint has been filed by the complainant-Surerndra Bihari Ojha stating therein that he is absolute owner of land measuring 2 katha comprised in Holding No. E-456 with house standing thereon in portion of R.S. Plot No. 753 under Khata No. 97 situated at Mouza-Uliyan, P.S. Kadma, Thana No. 153, District-East Singhbhum by virtue of having acquired right, title and interest vide agreement dated 03.05.1958 and his possession was confirmed in proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 192/77.

It is further case of the complainant that he entered into an development agreement between his maternal uncle B.N. Tiwary on 12.10.2015 and there was verbal agreement that both complainant and B.N. Tiwary will construct G+2 house and both parties will get 50% share. Pursuant thereto, the said B.N. Tiwary constructed G+2 house over the said land.

It is alleged that according to agreement, all the papers relating to property were in possession of B.N. Tiwary but the said B.N. Tiwary died in the month of November, 2015, thereafter the complainant went to take stock of his 50% share where he found that the accused persons were residing there who are brother-in-law of B.N. Tiwary and wife of brother in-law and they requested him to give six months time and agreed to vacate the house but they did not do so. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice which was replied by the accused persons by stating that the property was sold by the complainant in favour of B.N. Tiwary on 13.06.2003 for a consideration amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- and they purchased the same vide agreement for sale dated 08.08.2003 executed by B.N. Tiwary for a consideration amount of Rs. 1, 35,000/- and since they are in possession of the same.

It is further alleged that the documents are fake and forged for grabbing his property in view of the fact that the development agreement was executed on 12.10.2015 and his signature is in English whereas he signs in Hindi.

It is further alleged that the accused persons prepared a forged document to grab the property and on 05.11.2017 when the complainant went to see his house, the accused persons abused him in filthy language and tried to assault him and thereafter the complainant lodged the C/1 Case No. 3510 of 2017 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur which was sent to the concerned police station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for institution of F.I.R. and accordingly, Sonari P.S. Case No. 41/18 has been registered.

5. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the cognizance order and the F.I.R. on the ground that the entire dispute is civil in nature and no case under section 420 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners but the cognizance has been taken in the said section. He submits that the complaint was referred to the concerned police station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for needful and pursuant thereto F.I.R. has been instituted and after investigation police submitted final form stating therein that nature of the case is civil. He submits th