JUDGEMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 28.04.2004 passed by Shri V.P. Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya, in complaint case No. 805/2003 taking cognizance for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against accused persons named in the complaint petition including the petitioner. 3. Admitted relevant fact of this case is that the opposite party No. 2 filed complaint case No. 805/2003 against three persons out of whom non-petitioner Kedar Pandey executed a sale deed with respect to a piece of land in favour of petitioner figuring at serial No. 2 in the complaint petition in the accused column. 4. Undisputedly 6 decimals land of Khata No. 16(old), Plot No. 724 of village - Amra, P.S. - Konch, District - Gaya, originally belong to one Shaligram Pandey who died leaving behind two sons namely, Ganeshi Pandey and Maheshi Pandey and son of Ganeshi Pandey is complainant opposite party No. 2, whereas son of Maheshi Pandey is Kedar Pandey vendor of the petitioner. As per complainant his ancestor got an idol of Lord Banshidhar established and father of Kedar Pandey on 10.08.1925, three decimals of land falling in his share which is subject matter of the dispute here as alleged donated to Lord Banshidhar through written instrument accordingly entire six decimals land stand gifted to the Lord. The surviving heirs of Shaligram Pandey were/are priest of the temple. Recently, Kedar Pandey left taking interest in assignment but he has transferred three decimals land in favour of the petitioner so the complainant in consultation with other followers of Lord Banshidhar filed this complaint petition. 5. The main contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner against the impugned order is that it is outright an civil dispute and if at all any one is cheated or put on loss, it is the petitioner who may have a right to lodge the case against the wrong doer, but, in the present case, he has been named as accused. 6. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned Counsel representing the opposite party No. 2 vehemently submitted that there is prima facie case made out against the petitioner also the court below has rightly taken cognizance which needs no interference. 7. From the very plain reading of the complaint petition, it appears that the claim of the complainant against the transfer of the land is based on one Arpanama said to have been executed by Maheshi Pandey in favour of Lord Banshidhar on 10.08.1925. Undisputedly, the same is an unregistered instrument, moreover, right, title and interest of ancestor of the vendors of the petitioner is undisputed, if at all, there is anything otherwise is to be determined on the basis of such unregistered instrument by way of Arpanama, it can be done only by a competent civil court in due proceeding except execution of the document, nothing more has been said against the accused persons specifically petitioner carries no specific allegation but of being a purchaser of the land by virtue of registered sale deed executed by the heir of admitted original owner. 8. On receipt of complaint petition the court below got few witnesses examined during inquiry and passed the impugned order appears without even going through the nature and impact of the averments made in the complaint petition properly. 9. It has rightly been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if at all anyone is to suffer in case right of Lord Banshidhar is established, it is none else than the petitioner, but in no way he may be made accused for the crime which prima facie appears not committed by him, by getting a sale deed executed in his favour after examining the Title etc. of his transferor, who in the deed has stated the land being inherited from his ancestor and nothing more about any sort of overt act appears attributed against the petitioner. 10. In face of the above, finding no criminal offence being made so far petitioner is concerned, impugned order is not sustainable accordingly, hereby quashed and this application is allowed.