ORDER
D.K. Sinha, J.
1. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order impugned dated 2.7.2003, in C.P. Case No. 355 of 2002 whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against them. It is further prayed that the entire criminal proceedings, presently pending in the Court of Sri Uttam Anand, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Chas at Bokaro with respect to the above complaint case be quashed.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that opposite party No. 2 filed complaint case being C.P. Case No. 355 of 2002 against the petitioners alleging that the petitioner No. 2 had entered into written agreement with the opposite party No. 2 for sale of her property situated at Mouza No. 30 appertaining of Khata No. 566, plot No. 7013, measuring an area of 3567 sq. ft. against Ekrarnama and by way of advance, the opposite party No. 2 paid a sum of 51,000/- to the petitioner No. 1 in presence of the witnesses. The agreement was prepared by one Bir Bahadur Singh, Advocate with the assurance that on the return of the son of the petitioners, sale deed would be executed in favour of opposite party No. 2. It was alleged that at the time of the said agreement it was convinced by the petitioner No. 1 that he was the absolute owner of the property and the same was gifted to his wife, i.e. petitioner No. 2. On 27.8.2002 two brothers of the petitioner No. 1 came to opposite party No. 2 and appraised that the petitioners had entered into agreement with him fraudulently and that the petitioner had obtained advance with respect to such property in which the brothers of the petitioner No. 1 were co-sharers. A registered notice thereafter was sent to the petitioners which was not received and ultimately the opposite party No. 2 visited the house of the petitioners for the execution of the sale deed and also disclosed that his two brothers were co-sharers of the said property whereupon the petitioners threatened the opposite party No. 2 with the consequences and refused having taken any advance against the proposed execution of the said land.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that apart from the present complaint case, the opposite party No. 2 filed Title Suit No. 33 of 2003 in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Bokaro praying therein for permanent injunction and also for specific performance of agreement making the petitioners as defendants and his two brothers as proforma defendants.
4. Learned Counsel further contended that from the bare perusal of the complaint case it would be evident that opposite party No. 2 had not disclosed the total consideration amount for transfer for land in question except the advance amount of Rs. 51.000/-alleged to have been accepted by the petitioners on 15.6.2001. The socalled agreement has not been brought on record either of complaint case or Title Suit which was required to be registered under the Registration Act and, therefore, If there was an agreement and acknowledgement of receiving of Rs. 51.000/- it has got no legal entity in terms of provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Registration Act.
5. Learned Counsel pointed out that in the Title Suit No. 33 of 2003 opposite party No. 2 had prayed for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from transferring the property in favour of third party till the execution be made in favour of the opposite party No. 2 but, on the other hand, it has been alleged in the complaint petition that forgery and cheating was committed by taking advance of Rs. 51.000/-fraudulently by the petitioners with respect to the property of which they are not the absolute owner. Therefore, conflicting prayers have been made in complaint petition as well as in title suit. In view of the above fact, the present complaint case is pre-dominantly of civil nature and continuation of the present criminal proceeding would be sheer abuse of process of law.
6. Advancing his argument, learned Counsel submitted that the petitioners were in need of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the purpose of their daughter’s marriage and in that connection they sought friendly loan from opposite party No. 2, who by way of first instalment paid Rs. 51.000/- to the petitioner on 15.6.2001 with the assurance to pay the balance amount at the time of marriage and the signatures of the petitioners on plain paper were obtained in token of the receipt of Rs. 51.000/- and he further wanted the documents of the property as collateral security against the friendly loan. The signature on the plain paper of the petitioners were fraudulently converted into an agreement for sale of the entire property by the opposite party No. 2. Learned Court below ignoring the dispute of civil nature as also the fact that the matter is sub-judice before the Court of civil jurisdiction took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners in mechanical manner and without application of mind, and, therefore, the order Impugned as well as entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed for securing the ends of justice.
7. It is settled principle of law that the allegation of fraud and cheating cannot be decided by a Court of civil jurisdiction and hence under the facts and circumstances when the cognizance of such offence has been taken on the basis of the complaint petition by a Court of criminal jurisdiction it does not call for any interference of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no legal bar of criminal prosecution when a civil dispute is sub-judice before a competent Court. There being no merit in this petition. It is dismissed.