JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order impugned dated 19.6.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Deoghar in PCR Case No. 727 of 2005(T.R. No. 1344 of 2006) whereby and whereunder the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the petitioners, Sanjay Nand Jha and Nirmal Kumar Mishra with meeting of their minds represented before the Opposite parties No. 2 to 7 that one Shyam Nandan Shashtri, being the Secretary of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya and an authorized person on behalf of the Managing Committee of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya, had executed a general power of attorney in their favour to pursue for sale of the land appertaining to plot Nos. 17 and 18 corresponding to town plan plot Nos. 420 and 421 of Mouza Dhawani measuring 4 acres 7 decimals of land forming part of J.S. No. 2/3432 being the Basour land transferable in nature, situated at Deoghar- Jesidih Road and the same is popularly known as Brahmacharya Ashram land. The petitioners further represented that under the general power of attorney, both were empowered to make transfer of the said lands to the prospective purchasers for lawful consideration. 3. Believing the contention of the petitioners, in good Faith, on their representation, Opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 entered into an agreement for sale with the petitioners under the terms that the entire consideration amount would be deposited in the account of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya. On such representation and assurance of the petitioners, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 obtained nine demand drafts, as contained in the Schedule of the complaint petition, from the a of Rajeev Kumar Singh and made over all the drafts to the petitioners against which the petitioners entered into a written agreement for sale dated 16.6.2004 with the complainant in respect of half of the land as mentioned herein above. The petitioners acknowledged the receipt of the nine bank drafts worth Rs. 14,00,242/- and case of Rs. 16,99,758/- only being the consideration as advance for the sale of the aforesaid land. The petitioners had agreed to execute transfer of the aforesaid land by registered sale deeds on receipt of the balance consideration money from the members of the Opposite parties. 4. 14,00,242/- and case of Rs. 16,99,758/- only being the consideration as advance for the sale of the aforesaid land. The petitioners had agreed to execute transfer of the aforesaid land by registered sale deeds on receipt of the balance consideration money from the members of the Opposite parties. 4. It is stated in the Complaint petition that when the members of the opposite party with a view to get the draft of the sale deed prepared from their lawyer made an enquiry about the land, it was gathered from the lawyer that the land was disputed and a suit was pending in the court of Sub-Judge, Deoghar being the Title (D) suit No. 94 of 2004. The matter was brought to the notice of the petitioners in respect of the hinds being disputed. The petitioners persuaded that litigation was at the final stage and only after disposal of the suit the transfer of the land would be executed, but after considerable time, when the petitioners did not take any initiative for the transfer, a legal notice was served on them on 13.8.2005. Inspite of that, the petitioners did not return the said sum of Rs. 31,00,000/- to the members of opposite party. Upon being convinced that the petitioners after making criminal conspiracy with other accused persons have cheated Rs. 31,00,000/- from the opposite parties, a complaint was lodged against them for the offence under Section 420/120B IPC. 5. As many as seven persons including the petitioners were figured as accused in PCR Case No. 727 of 2005 by the complainant Manoj Kumar but after enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the S.D.J.M Deoghar by order dated 19.6.2006 found that prima facie case was made out only against the petitioners for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and remaining accused persons were discharged. 6. Mr. Jai Prakash Jha the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioners are neither a party to the Title (D) suit No. 94 of 2004 pending in the court of Sub-Judge-II Deoghar, nor land in question was involved in the said suit (Annexure-3). 6. Mr. Jai Prakash Jha the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioners are neither a party to the Title (D) suit No. 94 of 2004 pending in the court of Sub-Judge-II Deoghar, nor land in question was involved in the said suit (Annexure-3). A registered power of attorney dated 14.6.2004 was executed by Professor Shyam Nandan Shashstri in favour of the petitioners whereby the petitioners were empowered to sale the property in question with the direction to deposit the sale proceeds to the executor Professor Shyam Nandan Shashtri (Annexure-4): 7. Mr. Jha further submitted by virtue of the said power of attorney the petitioners entered into an agreement in respect of the sale of the property in question on 16.6.2004 with the five persons namely Dipak Gupta, Vishambhar Prasad, Manoj Kumar (Complainant) Rajesh Kumar Chowdhury and Bipul Kumar Ghosh and after obtaining Rs. 31,00,000/-as an advance from the aforesaid persons an agreement to sale was prepared on 16.6.2004 with stipulation that balance amount shall be paid from 16.6.2004 to 16.10.2004, failing to which amount already paid would be forfeited. The petitioners, after receipt of the hank drafts as well as cash total to the tune of Rs. 31,00.000/-, deposited the same in the S.B.A/C No. 2613 and C.A No. 10256 of Canara Bank Deoghar which was existing and running in the name of Gurukul Mahavidyala, Baidyanath Dham, Deoghar. The bank statement has been enclosed in respect of the deposit of the said amount (Annexure-6). 8. Advancing his argument Mr. Jai Prakash Jha submitted that in the meantime a complaint was made against the office bearers of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya Baidyanath Dham before the S.D.M Deoghar who issued notice vide memo No. 182/Deoghar on 5.3.2006 whereby both the disputed parties (office bearers) were called upon to place their respective grievance and till disposal of the dispute in question it was directed that neither general meeting of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya Baidyanath Dham would be held nor any step would be taken in respect of transfer of the immovable properties. The said notice of the S.D.M. was challenged before this Court by way of filing W.PC No. 1968 of 2006 which is sub-judice. Mr. The said notice of the S.D.M. was challenged before this Court by way of filing W.PC No. 1968 of 2006 which is sub-judice. Mr. Jha, the Senior Counsel further submitted that all the live witnesses produced and examined on behalf of the complainant in course of the enquiry before he S.D.J.M. Deoghar were consistent that the aforesaid amount to the tune of Rs. 31,00,000/- was deposited in the bank account of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya Baidyanath Dham, Deoghar and in this manner the petitioners were not in possession of the said consideration money and the petitioners have acted and exercised their power of attorney with all honesty. Pursuant to the said notice the petitioners had made endeavour to the office bearers of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya, Baidyanath Dham for return of the said amount to the opposite parties but they expressed their inability to return the same due to some disputes and litigations which cropped up and also in view of the notice issued by the S.D.M on 5.3.2006 that they were prevented from transferring any amount of the account of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya Baidyanth Dham since was freezed till disposal of the dispute between the rival parties by the order under notice aforesaid. 9. Mr. Jha submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the case cognizance of the offence taken under Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners is unsustainable, illegal and uncalled for. 10. I find that similar issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court, reported in (2006) 2 S.C.C. (Cri.) 430. In Murari lal Gupta v. Gopi Singh the Apex Court observed. We have perused the pleadings of the parties, the complaint and the orders of the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. Having taken into consideration all the materials made available on record by the parties and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner are wholly unwarranted. The complaint is an abuse of the process of the court and the proceedings are therefore, liable to be quashed liven if all the averments made in the complaint are taken to be correct, yet the case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Penal Code is not made out. The complaint is an abuse of the process of the court and the proceedings are therefore, liable to be quashed liven if all the averments made in the complaint are taken to be correct, yet the case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Penal Code is not made out. The complaint does not make any averment so as to infer any fraudulent or dishonest inducement having been made by the petitioner pursuant to which the respondent parted with the money. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner does not have the property or that the petitioner was not competent to enter into agreement to sell or could not have transferred title in the property to the respondent. Merely because an agreement to sell was entered into which agreement the petitioner failed to honour, it cannot be said that the petitioner has cheated the respondent. No case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 IPC is made out even prima facie. 11. On the other hand Mr. K.P. Deo learned Counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the petitioners had mis-represented before the members of the opposite party and after concealing the disputes in respect of the land in question for which the suit was pending before the Sub-Judge-II Deoghar, they impressed upon the complainant as well as the witnesses to part with their money to the tune of Rs. 31,00,000/- and for which the petitioner cannot be exonerated from their criminal liability which is reflected from their mensrea. 12. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors. the Apex Court observed: A growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interest of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the power of attorney executed in favour of the petitioners has not been challenged as it was forged or the petitioners had no authority to sell, or enter into an agreement for sale of the landed property of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya. The petitioners have assigned reasons that on account of dispute within the office bearers of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya, the matter was agitated before the S.D.M. Deoghar who issued notice on 5.3.2006 to the parties puting restrictions on the transfer of the land of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya till disposal of the dispute. The petitioners have asserted that the witnesses produced on behalf of the complainant in course of the enquiry were consistent that all the amount to the tune of Rs. 31,00,000/-was deposited in the account of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya and in this manner the petitioners are not beneficiaries of the said amount in any manner. from the nature of the allegation as levelled against the petitioners I find that the dispute is of a civil nature and the petitioners have been reasonably prevented from returning the amount which was credited in the account of Gurukul Mahavidyalaya: However, the petitioners are under obligation to perform their part of agreement by executing the registered sale deed of the land in question, failing to which they are bound to pay the amount to the creditors and for such act the opposite parties including the complainant may redress their grievance before the civil court of the competent jurisdiction and criminal case against the petitioners in view of proposition of law as laid down in Murari Lal Gupta v. Gopi Singh (Supra) the present complaint against the petitioners is unsustainable. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find either the element of cheating or criminal conspiracy there in the conduct of the petitioners and hence the order passed by the S.D.J.M. Deoghar in PCR Case NO. 727 of 2005 on 19.6.2006 is set aside. This petition is allowed.