Judgment P.K.Sinha, J. 1. Opposite party No. 2 had earlier appeared in the case but when the case was called out for hearing, none appeared on his behalf. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional P.P. were heard. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code", in short) for quashing order dated 9.10.1996 recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roh-tas at Sasaram relating to Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 1519/1603 of 1996/1996 whereby and whereunder the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on submission of charge-sheet by Police, had taken cognizance of offence under Section 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The facts, in brief, are that a First Information Report, vide An-nexure-1, was lodged with the police by informant Dular Chand Prasad, Opposite Party No. 2 in this case, giving risc to the aforesaid case, alleging therein that he belonged to a scheduled caste, one of five brothers whose lands were joint. On 13.8.1996 he came to know that accused Chhattu Singh had enticed his brother Munshi Ram to sell the joint property at which the complainant filed an application in the registration office intimating that Munshi Ram was not fully authorised to execute sale-deed as also that permission was not taken by him by the Collector. 4. Further case is that subsequently complainant came to know from witnesses that a clerk of the registration office and this petitioner asked Munshi Ram, Chhattu Singh and the deed writer to file an affidavit that Munshi Ram did not belong to scheduled caste. Such an affidavit, though on incorrect facts, had been used in the transaction. Further allegation is that the correct consideration amount was neither written in the deed nor was paid to Munshi Ram, but the sale deed was got executed in favour of Chhattu Singh. 5. After investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet and on perusal of relevant documents learned Lower Court by the impugned order took cognizance of the offence. 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the materials available in the case diary did not made out any criminal offence against the petitioner who, in any case, had not benefited from execution of the aforesaid document. 7. The case diary is available. 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the materials available in the case diary did not made out any criminal offence against the petitioner who, in any case, had not benefited from execution of the aforesaid document. 7. The case diary is available. From perusal of the case diary, as pointed out, it will appear that a witness Ramji Singh supported that Munshi Ram had executed a sale-deed in favour of Chhattu Singh and also said who were witnesses to that but he did not name the petitioner. Witness Sidhnath Pandey gave similar statement. 8. It was pointed out that in para 12 of the case diary the nvestigating Officer perused the sale-deed and found that Munshi Ram had executed the sale-deed on a consideration of Rs. 13,500/- and also noted the names of the deed writer and the witnesses. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer also met the Sub-Registrar of that office who intimated that after the year 1968, as per a decision of the High Court, no permission was required for selling the land. The Investigating Officer also perused an affidavit filed by Munshi Ram in which he claimed that he was selling a part of the land out of his ancestral property and even after that he would have enough land left to him. 9. Learned counsel pointed paragraph 22 of the case diary as per which the Police Officer had recorded statement of the seller. Munshi Ram who told that he had sold a total of 14.5 decimals of land belonging to his share, to Chhattu Singh on payment of consideration amount of Rs. 13,500/-, also claiming that in that land his brothers had no share and even after selling the land he had enough land left to him. This is the material on the record on which the Police submitted charge-sheet and on which cognizance of offence was taken. 10. Insofar as the allegation that the land was sold by Munshi Ram without receiving the consideration amount is concerned, that has not been supported by Munshi Ram himself. This is the material on the record on which the Police submitted charge-sheet and on which cognizance of offence was taken. 10. Insofar as the allegation that the land was sold by Munshi Ram without receiving the consideration amount is concerned, that has not been supported by Munshi Ram himself. Therefore, on this account, I do not find that a case under Section 420 or 406 of the Penal Code was made out, particularly against this petitioner against whom allegation is about tendering advise to the seller and purchaser on a point, which allegation in First Information Report has not been supported by any witness. 11. Insofar as the selling of the land without permission is concerned. even if permission was necessary and the land had been sold without taking permission of competent authority, for that a civil action would lie for getting the sale-deed declared invalid, particularly if the informant or any one else claimed that Munshi Ram had sold the land in excess of his share. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the materials on the record particularly in the case diary, do not bring about commission of a criminal offence by this petitioner. 13. In view of the aforesaid, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.10.1996 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is hereby quashed insofar as this petitioner is concerned. 14. However, it is made clear that whatever observation and findings have been noted above, are only for the purpose of deciding the matter in hand and none of those observations and findings would be taken into consideration by the learned Lower Court insofar as the trial of the rest of the accused, who are not the petitioner before this Court, is concerned.