Hon’ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.—I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the papers filed along with the application.

2. This application seeks to quash the summoning order dated 27.8.2014 as well as proceedings of Complaint case No. 447 of 2014 (Harmun Tiwari v. Savitri Devi and others) under Section 419, 420 IPC, P.S. Tariya Sujan, District Kushinagar, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar.

3. It appears that the opposite party No. 2 has filed a criminal complaint on 22.3.2014 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar against the applicants and three others contending that the predecessor-in-interest of applicants namely Shyam Sunder Tiwari had executed a registered sale-deed on 3.8.1995 in favour of Smt. Prabhawati wife of opposite party No. 2 in respect of his 1/3rd share in Arazi No. 176 area 0.644 i.e. 0.215 hectare situated in village Jhadva and delivered possession and since then the O. P. No. 2 is in possession thereof as his wife had died. It was further alleged that the applicants and three others named in the complaint inspite of having knowledge of the above sale transaction, hatched conspiracy and in order to cause wrongful loss to complainant and wrongful gain to themselves, prepared a forged sale-deed on 19.10.2012 and got it registered. After enquiry under Chapter XV Cr. P. C., the learned Magistrate vide order dated 27.8.2014 has taken cognizance against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 419 and 420 IPC. However, the three others named in the complainant (the vendees) were not summoned.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed in the complaint and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature, as suit for cancellation of sale-deed in question filed by the applicants is pending in the Civil Court; that application of the applicants for setting aside ex parte mutation order dated 2.4.2014 is pending. He has referred to the documents and statements filed in the case to support his contention.

5. The applicants have not filed the copy of sale-deed dated 19.10.2012 allegedly executed by them in favour of Aysha Khatoon and two others (not summoned in the case). The instant complaint had been filed on 22.3.2014 and after recording statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr. P. C., cognizance against the applicants has been taken vide order 27.8.2014, whereas the suit for cancellation of two sale-deeds dated 31.8.1995 (incorrect date, as it is 3.8.1995) and 10.7.2009 had been filed by the applicants in the Court Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Kasia (Kushinagar) on 8.10.2014.

6. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the cases of Indra Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2008 SC 251 and Dharmendra Singh and others v. Sant Saran Gupta and another, 2011 (72) ACC 111. I have perused both these reports, but on account of totally distinguished facts, the ratio of these cases do not apply to the facts of the instant case. In tho