Judgment 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1455 of 2006 and the order dated 2nd February,2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka in that complaint case, taking the cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Opposite party Sheikh Kabir filed a petition of complaint alleging therein that the petitioner belongs to a respectable family of Banka District having ancestral land. It is alleged that the petitioners family has got ancestral land in Ward No. 3 of Banka Town bearing Khata No. 113, Plot No. 410. area 0.45 decimal. It is alleged that the petitioner disclosed that aforesaid land was in the name of his mother and after her death he was fully entitled to sell the land as the other heirs had authorized him to sell the same. So, it is alleged that sale of aforesaid 0.45 decimals of land was settled for a consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/- and out of the said consideration money a sum of Rs. 6,80,000/- was paid by the opposite party to the petitioner and on a stamp paper of Rs. 20/- a deed of agreement was executed. It is alleged that the deed of sale of said land was not executed by the petitioner and hence the opposite party filed the present complaint case. After inquiry cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate. 3. The learned lawyer for the petitioner submits that the opposite party has already filed a title suit in the Court of Sub-Judge-I. Banka for specific performance of contract in which the petitioner has put his appearance and filed written statement in which he has denied the allegations. He submits that the petitioner did not negotiate for sale of the said land, did not receive any consideration money and did not execute any deed of agreement. He submits that the deed of agreement for sale is forged and fabricated document. He submits that with a view to grab the valuable land of the petitioner the present case has been filed by the opposite party. He submits that a title suit for specific performance of contract is already pending and this is a case of civil nature. He, therefore, submits that the miscellaneous case be allowed. 4. He submits that with a view to grab the valuable land of the petitioner the present case has been filed by the opposite party. He submits that a title suit for specific performance of contract is already pending and this is a case of civil nature. He, therefore, submits that the miscellaneous case be allowed. 4. The learned lawyer for the opposite party submits that the petitioner made false representation of fact with the purpose of cheating and cheated the opposite party and hence he is liable for prosecution. He submits that cognizance has already been taken after due inquiry. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the miscellaneous case. 5. Considered the allegations contained in the petition of complaint and submissions advanced on behalf of both sides. I find that this is a pure case of civil nature and there is merit in this application and it is fit to be allowed. 6. In the result, this application is allowed and entire proceeding of the complaint case and order dated 2nd February, 2007 taking cognizance of the offence is hereby set aside.