IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale deed being void and illegal is a subject matter of civil dispute and cannot be the ground for filing an FIR. The court also clarified the ingredients of cheating and fraud under the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

Both the petitions are being heard together as common FIR as well as order taking cognizance are under challenge in both the petitions.

2. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

3. These petitions have been filed for quashing the FIR as well as the order taking cognizance dated 29.04.2015 in connection with G.R. No.168 of 2014 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No.62 of 2014, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.

4. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that the land situated at Mouza Gamharia P.S. Adityapur, Thana No.66, Adityapur N.A.C. Ward No.11, comprised under Khata No.133, 134, 135 and 137 are the joint ancestral properties of the informant, his brother Bijay Moral, along with maternal aunt Smt. Andi Bej @ Das and maternal uncle Mansa Ram Bej and other co-sharers. It was further alleged that according to the informant, he is the descendant of Nadia Bej who lied behind him, his son namely, Mansharam Bej (accused no.1) and two married daughters namely Amodi Bej @ Das and Moni Bej @ Moral as his legal heirs and successors. The informant and Bijay Moral are the sons of Moni Moral who has already died. It was also alleged that the present petitioners are representatives of M/s Usha Martin Ltd., managed to bring into existence a Registered Sale Deed No.796 dated 26.02.2013 in respect of aforesaid joint family property knowing it fully that the Title (Partition) Suit No.46 of 2011 is pending against accused no.1 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I at Seraikella. Hence the aforesaid sale deed is void and illegal. On 10.12.2013, the present petitioners gave out to the complainant that they have purchased the land and openly threatened to dispossess the complainant. The complainant issued lawyer's notice and it was alleged that the said lawyer's notice has been received by the petitioners on 07.12.2013, but did not reply. Therefore, the FIR was lodged.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not purchased the land for their own purpose and they are simply employees of M/s. Usha Martin Limited, Vth Phase, Adityapur Industrial Area, P.S. Gamharia and the company is the actual purchaser of the land in question. He submits that the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.2466 of 2015 was posted as Deputy General Manager (Public Relation) in the said company and the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.2467 of 2015 is the representative of the said company. He submits that there is no post of Manager (Estate) in the petitioners' company as show accused no.2 in the complaint petition. He further submits that the petitioners have only acted on behalf of the company and the land was purchased for the said company. He submits that the allegation is against accused no.1 as he sold the land in question to the company and the petitioners herein are only the purchased on behalf of the company. He also submits that Title (Partition) Suit No.46 of 2011 was pending between the informant and accused no.1, which has also been disclosed in the complaint petition. He submits that in this background, the case has been unnecessarily lodged against the petitioners. On these grounds, he submits that the FIR may kindly be quashed.

6. Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 submits that in spite of legal notice, the petitioners have not replied and accused no.1 was having knowledge of the said Title (Partition) Suit, who happened to be co-sharer of the land in question. He submits that in this background, the learned court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioners.

7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the FIR as wel