JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 6.11.2003 by which the learned C.J.M., Ranchi has taken cognizance against the petitioners for alleged offences under Section 406, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Some admitted facts on record are that the petitioners have entered into an agreement with the respondents -opposite parties to sell the disputed property described as below: 62, Circular Road, Ranchi, Khata No 43, plot No. 1608, 1609 with all the structure attending thereon with buildings, out houses, wells trees etc. area more or less 5.527 Acres on agreed price of Rs. 2,00,00,151 (Rupees Two Crores One Hundred Fifty one only) as per annexure -2. 3. It is also admitted facts on record that before the agreed sale controversy arose regarding the title and ownership of this land. The controversy arose between said Ranu Priti Mookherjee and one Deepti Mukherjee for which a Title Suit No. 241 of 2001 is going on in civil court. 4. The petitioners have entered into the above mentioned agreement on the basis of an agreement with one Ranu Priti Mookherjee stated to be executed on 23.7.1984 but the said agreement has not been filed by the petitioners before this Court. This is also admitted fact on record that the petitioner has received advance money Rs. 31,86,111 (Rupees thirty one lacs eighty six thousand one hundred eleven only). However the said agreement could not be fulfilled and the O.Ps lodged a complaint case No. 717 of 2003 before the court of CJM, Ranchi alleging therein that the agreement was made with a purpose to cheat the complainants and misappropriate the advance amount by the petitioners having full knowledge that the said Ranu Priti Mookherjee has got no title over the land. Therefore they have cheated the complainants and got the advance money for an agreement which they knew could not be fulfilled. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Hariballav Prasad stressed before me that in such admitted facts the petitioners are not liable to be prosecuted for criminal offences when the dispute is arising out of an agreement. It was also submitted that the agreement was inforce till 31.3.2004. Therefore this complaint petition was filed premature, intentionally to harass the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Hariballav Prasad stressed before me that in such admitted facts the petitioners are not liable to be prosecuted for criminal offences when the dispute is arising out of an agreement. It was also submitted that the agreement was inforce till 31.3.2004. Therefore this complaint petition was filed premature, intentionally to harass the petitioners. The learned Counsel further criticized the impugned order dated 6.11.2003 by which the cognizance has been taken on the ground that the dispute is purely of civil nature for non fulfillment of the terms of contract. Therefore the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed. 6. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that the petition is itself bad in law. According to Sri Mazumdar the petitioners having full knowledge cheated the O.Ps and induced them to enter into an agreement, which they knew could not be fulfilled. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar further submitted that they have taken huge amount of Rs. 31,86,111 (Rupees thirty one lacs eighty six thousand one hundred eleven only) and when the matter became clear that the title itself was in dispute they demanded the money back but the petitioners refused to return the money, then present case has been lodged. In this context Sri Mazumdar further pointed out that in similarly situated facts the Honble Apex Court has repeatedly held that criminal proceeding need not be quashed. Mr. Mazumdar relied upon 1999 (8) SCC 686 , 2001 (8) SCC 645 and AIR 2001 SC 3014 . In reply Sri Prasad relied upon a decision reported in PLJR 2002 (1) 93. 7. From the facts available on record, it appears that the right title of the said Ranu Priti Mookheree is in challenge in Title Suit No. 241 of 2001. The present complaint petition has been preferred in 2003 since dispute arose regarding the right, title of the person on whose behalf the petitioners have entered into an agreement The amount of advance is not disputed Even before this Court during pendency of the present petition on prayer of both sides time was allowed on 11.2.2004 and 12.3.2004 to get the matter settled but no such settlement could be arrived at. 8. In view of the facts, stated above, the only question remains if the criminal proceeding set in motion be quashed. 8. In view of the facts, stated above, the only question remains if the criminal proceeding set in motion be quashed. Their Lordships in 1999(8)SCC 686 has been pleased to hold that criminal prosecution for alleged cheating cannot be thwarted merely because of civil proceedings maintainable. It is further held that existence of an arbitration clause in the contract was not sufficient ground for quashing of the complaint. Their Lordships further in 2001 (8) SCC 645 held that complaint case alleging cheating and forgery cannot be quashed merely because of pendency of civil suit between the parties. In both the cases point raised before the Honble Court was that the dispute arising out of an agreement was primarily of civil nature for which independent criminal proceeding was an abuse of process of the Court. Their Lordships considered the facts in details and laid down that criminal proceeding was wrongly quashed by the High Courts. In AIR 2001 SC 3014 Their Lordships has been pleased to hold that criminal proceeding cannot be quashed only because the respondent has filed a suit. In a criminal court the allegations made in the complaint have to be established independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil court. The facts of this case in my humble view are squarely covered by the above decisions. 9. The decision relied upon by the petitioners reported in PLJR 2002 (1) 93 was in connection with a dispute arising out of hire and purchase agreement between the parties wherein the purchaser has lodged a criminal case against the hirer who has taken over the vehicle back for non payment of installments and sold it to another person. The facts of present case are definitely different In context and substance: 10. Having considered the above mentioned facts and circumstances as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court, I find that the petitioners have failed to make out a case that the proceeding of complaint case No. 717 of 2003 and the order dated 6.11.2003 by which they have been put on trial under Section 406, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code requires to be quashed. 11. In the result, I find that the present petition is without merit and deserves to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is dismissed but without costs.