Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and for the State. 2. The case of the petitioners is that in the first information report was lodged on 18.6.2003. After investigation the case was not found true, however before the submission of the final form itself the complainant had filed a protest petition. The protest petition is also annexed as Annexure-3 to this application. The allegations by the Opposite Party No. 2 are that he is the owner of Khata No. 105, Khesara No. 175 measuring 1 acre 28 decimals which he had purchased from Maqbool Ashraf son of Late Mahmud Ahashan. The further allegation is that two persons namely Md. Abdul Raquib and Md. Fazal Rahman had sold plot no. 175 to one Mahendra Prasad, and Chandeshwar Prasad had identified the purchaser. It is alleged by the complainant that these persons have committed forgery and wrongly sold of that land in question which actually belongs to the Opposite Party. After the protest petition was filed, witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant who have supported the allegations made in the protest petition-cum-complaint petition in which it is said that the land which has been sold by Md. Abdul Raqib and Fazal Rahman who are accused nos. 1 and 2 to accused no. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the Title Suit No. 63 of 2003 has been filed by the complainant Md. Gulam Sarvar and others n which the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 are as the defendants no. 1, 2 and 3. The complainant has made prayer in the suit which is as follows: "(a) It be declared that the sale deed dated 31.8.2001 executed by principal defendant Nos. 1 & 2 first set in favour of principal defendant No. 3 second set in respect of an area of 34 and 1/4 decimals described in schedule No. 11 of plaint of Thana No. 166 Tauzi No. 8876/214 Khata No. 105 Khesra No. 176 situated in village Bazidpore, PS. & Distt.-Sheikhpura as well as the sale deed dt. 31.5.2003 executed by principal defendant No. 3 second set in respect of the aforesaid 34 and 1/4 decimals of land as described in schedule No. Ill on the plaint in favour of principal defendant No. 4 third set as illegal without consideration inoperative, showy, null and void and it was never acted upon. 31.5.2003 executed by principal defendant No. 3 second set in respect of the aforesaid 34 and 1/4 decimals of land as described in schedule No. Ill on the plaint in favour of principal defendant No. 4 third set as illegal without consideration inoperative, showy, null and void and it was never acted upon. (b) The principal defendant No. 4 third set be restrained by passing a temporary order of injunction from transforming alienating and changing the nature of the suit property within the final disposal of the suit. (c) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs against principal defendant Nos. 1 to 4. (d) Other relief or reliefs be awarded in favour of plaintiffs against the defendant Nos. 1 to 4." 3. The land described in the sale deed dated 31.8.2001 which are subject matter of the suit are the same lands and the sale deed is also the same for which the complaint-cum-protest petition has been instituted. 4. The Opposite Party claims that the title of land is derived from Most. Sogra wife of Ramzan Ahmad. The land in question were described as Gair Maurza Mallick and were in possession of Sogra who was the Mallick. Whereas according to the Opposite Party there is another lady called Sogra W/o Maqbool who had one daughter Mohmmadan who was a raiyat. Mohmmadan had 3 sons and one daughter and the petitioner are the grandsons of Mohmmadan. It is the claim of the Opposite Party that the vendors has shown the source of title from Sogra wife of Abdul Ghaffar, as such the petitioners claim that only the civil court can decide as to who is the actual owner of the suit premises and whether the sale deed is validly executed document and whether the vendors had title to sell the land. Unless the title is decided this court cannot hold or decide that the sale deed was obtained by cheating. 5. The Opposite Party on the other side has filed a counter affidavit in which he has stated that he is the actual owner of the land in question. 6. The Opposite Party also claims that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have admitted in the sale deed executed in favour of one Mahendra Prasad that they are maternal grandson of Umatus Soghra W/o Ramzan Ahmad. 6. The Opposite Party also claims that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have admitted in the sale deed executed in favour of one Mahendra Prasad that they are maternal grandson of Umatus Soghra W/o Ramzan Ahmad. Although the Opposite Party further claims that Umatus Soghra W/o Ramzan Ahmad had no concern with the land in question. Therefore, the petitioners have committed forgery and cheating while executing the sale deed. 7. From the averments made by the Opposite Party, it appears that both the parties are disputing the source of title of the land. The Opposite Party No. 2 further says that the petitioners have accepted the title of the opposite party in the averments made in the sale deed. Even presuming that this fact is correct although the Kewala dated 31.8.2001 is not part of the records, this matter would be essentially decided in the suit which is pending before the Sub-Judge and the criminal court cannot enter into the question of title. On behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2, it has been submitted that the execution of sale deed constitutes offence under sec. 463 i.e. committing forgery and petitioners are thereby liable to be convicted under sec. 463 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. I do not agree with the submissions made by the Opposite Party with respect to offences under sec. 463 of the IPC. The definition of forgery clearly shows that the forged document is prepared in support of claim or title. In this case there is a dispute with respect to the title and at this stage to presume that the title has been wrongly given and that the sale deed is a forged document would not be expedient in the facts of the case. The question of title can only be decided in a civil suit and the consequence of the decision will automatically follow. As far as the order of this court is concerned relating to taking of cognizance under sec. 420 of the IPC, I find that there is no case of cheating made out. The petitioner no. 1 and 2 who are said to be the vendors, if, at all can only be said to have cheated the purchasers of the property by wrongly representing themselves as the owners of the land, but the purchasers have not filed any case, that they have been cheated by the petitioner nos. The petitioner no. 1 and 2 who are said to be the vendors, if, at all can only be said to have cheated the purchasers of the property by wrongly representing themselves as the owners of the land, but the purchasers have not filed any case, that they have been cheated by the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, as such no offence under sec. 420 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners and the order of cognizance is hereby quashed. This case can be said to be pure and pure civil dispute and the complaint that an offence of forgery and cheating is made out against, the petitioners is not sustainable. 9. In the result, I quash the order dated 5.10.2004. This application thus allowed.