Judgment 1. The present petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 28.2.2006, passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in complaint case no. 3714 C of 2005, as also the quashing of the entire proceeding launched against the petitioner who figured as one of the accused in the above noted complaint case. 2. The short facts could be stated first. The complainant purchased a land from the present petitioner Rama Devi through deed of sale executed and registered on 2.2.2005, measuring 1 katha 5 dhur as per details in column 5 of the deed filed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner for a consideration amount of Rs. 1,37,000.00 only. The complainant satated that he erected a boundary wall around the above noted area of land pertaining to survey plot no. 235 in Khata No. 3, situated at Mauza Dhelwan RS. Fulwarisharif, District, Patna. 3. One fine morning the complainant found that his boundary wall had been demolished and on enquiry learnt that Prabhu Singh who had sold the land to the present petitioner was the full brother of one Sita Ram Singh had earlier sold the entire area of the above noted plot no. 235 to different persons at different point of time through different sale deeds. The vendor of the present petitioner Rama Devi, namely, Prabhu Singh had acted as an attesting witness. Thus it was alleged that in spite of having knowledge that Sita Ram Singh the brother of Prabhu Singh had sold the land and the land was sold to Rama Devi and she knowing full well about the earlier sale of the land, in order to cheat and with an intention that she got the delivery of the consideration amount executed the sale deed as stated above. 4. The contention is that the petitioner could not be imputed with an intent to cheat at the time of execution of the deed in as much as she was herself completely in dark about the sale of the land by Sita Ram Singh the brother of Prabhu Singh the vendor of the petitioner. It was further contended that the complaint petition recites that a consideration money of Rs. 5,15,000.00 only was paid to the petitioner on different dates, partly through different bank drafts and partly in cash. It was further contended that the complaint petition recites that a consideration money of Rs. 5,15,000.00 only was paid to the petitioner on different dates, partly through different bank drafts and partly in cash. The above statement does not appear compatible with the statement in the deed of sale dated 12.2.2005 which indicates that the total consideration money paid by the complainant to the petitioner was Rs. 1,37,000.00 which was paid by three different bank drafts appearing at page six of the deed in question. It was, as such contended that the allegation was so inherently improbable and patently absurd as not to allow the prosecution to further proceed. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.R No. 2 who was noticed and appeared in response thereto firstly contended that the very petition was not maintainable as the order summoning the petitioner was revisable as held by the Apex Court in 2000(6) SCC 195 , K.K. Patel and Another vs. State of Gujrat and 1999(3) Supreme Court Cases 134, Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pandey vs. Uttam & Another Another decision brought into my notice regarding the constitution of the offence was reported in AIR 2006 SC 2780 M/s Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. 6. As regards the maintainability of the present petition what I find after having perused the two decisions rendered by the Apex Court in K.K. Patel and Rajendra Kumar is that the question was whether the order of summoning was an interlocutory order or a final order. The contention was that it was interlocutory in nature and Sec.397(2) Cr.P.C. bars the filing of revision to challenge the vires of the order under Sec.204 Cr.RC. It was held by making reference to earlier decisions of the Apex Court that the order was not interloutory rather it was final or somewhere in between the final intermediate which could be put to scrutiny in criminal revision petition referred to under Sec.397 read with 399 Cr.RC. and as such there was no necessity that the order of summoning could be questioned only through the petition under Sec. 482 Cr. RC. The order could be challenged through a petition preferred under Sec. 482 Cr.RC. also appears another view which could be had from the 3rd decision of the Supreme Court rendered in M/s Indian Oil Corporation (supra). and as such there was no necessity that the order of summoning could be questioned only through the petition under Sec. 482 Cr. RC. The order could be challenged through a petition preferred under Sec. 482 Cr.RC. also appears another view which could be had from the 3rd decision of the Supreme Court rendered in M/s Indian Oil Corporation (supra). In that case the petition was challenged before the High Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. and the order of the High Court under that section was put into appeal before the Apex Court. 7. Sec. 482 Cr.RC. empowers the High Court to pass any order which appears necessary to be passed in the ends of justice or which is required to be passed so as to curtailing the abuse of the process of the court. If the order could not be final and it entails injustice upon any of the parties to a litigation or if the High Court finds that the further proceedings must simply be an abuse of the process of the court, it could intervene under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to correct the injustice or to curtail the proceeding. It is true that such cases could be few and far between and as such the High Court could act under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. in the rarest of the rare cases. 8. It is not denied that the petitioner had sold the land to the complainant. The sale deed which has been filed through a supplementary affidavit indicates that the total consideration money which was received by the petitioner and paid by the O.R No. 2 was Rs. 1,37,000.00 which was paid through three different bank drafts of different denominations issued by there different banks with the averments appearing at page 6 of the sale deed in question. However, the complaint petition in paragraph 9 and at other places stated that the O.R No. 2 complainant had paid a consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 5,71,000/-. During the course of argument the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that he annexed with the counter affidavit the receipt showing payment in cash to the petitioner of the remaining amount or the other part of the consideration money. 9. I have perused the counter affidavit as also the rejoinder filed by the O.R Nos. 5,71,000/-. During the course of argument the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that he annexed with the counter affidavit the receipt showing payment in cash to the petitioner of the remaining amount or the other part of the consideration money. 9. I have perused the counter affidavit as also the rejoinder filed by the O.R Nos. 2 and 1 find that there is absolutely no receipt or any other document attached with the counter affidavit in support of the above noted contention. In fact the counter affidavit and the rejoinder said nowhere that there was any such document in possession of the complainant so as to showing that in fact the consideration money was Rs. 5,71,000.00 as stated in the complaint in para 9 at its page 6. Thus there is complete conflict between the averment of the complainant and the real document i.e. the sale deed in question which has been produced and filed by the complainant as annexure-A to the counter affidavit and scribed by the present petitioner. But this may not be of any importance while examining the question of cheating and defrauding with that intent. 10. The criminal proceeding could be quashed if it appears to the court that the allegations on their very face appear inherently improbable and patently absurd. The allegation is that the petitioner knew about the earlier sale by the brother of her vendor and as such sold the property to the complainant. However, the petitioner could have the knowledge of the earlier sale of the property of the vendor of the petitioner does not appear from the copies of deposition which has been produced before me. But the recital in the sale deed at its paragraph 7 indicates that the property was not in dispute and that the petitioner had undisputed title and the property was free from all incumbrances. It also recites that there was no deed executed ever in respect of the property. But the recital in the sale deed at its paragraph 7 indicates that the property was not in dispute and that the petitioner had undisputed title and the property was free from all incumbrances. It also recites that there was no deed executed ever in respect of the property. This line of the recital makes it a case which might be treated by the criminal court as circumstances of cheating and defrauding because it is not disputed that the property was earlier sold by another person who was the brother of the vendor of the present petitioner and the petitioner had attested to that sale deed which brings the earlier sale into the knowledge of her vendor and may be to her as well. Whether the petitioner had the knowledge, whether the petitioner had intent to cheat requires deeper examination and that could be done by holding a ful-fledged trial. 11. Having said the above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.