JUDGMENT 1. - The present miscellaneous petition has been filed challenging the cognizance taken against the petitioner by the learned judicial Magistrate, Sri Vijaynagar by his order dated 16.3.2004 passed in Criminal Case No. 63/2004 for. the offences under Sections 384, 120-B I.P.C. as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar by his order dated 5.10.2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 27/2004. 2. Briefly stated, the facts, relevant and necessary for disposal of this miscellaneous petition, are set-out here in below. The complainant-respondent No. 2 Mangat Ram filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar with the allegations that the complainant-respondent No. 2 used to work in the shop of Banwari Lal (petitioner herein). Petitioner Banwari Lal filed a false case of theft against the complainant and thereafter the petitioners Banwari Lal and Loku Ram went to the house of the complainant and told his family members that complainant Mangat Ram had been caught by the police in connection with theft and that a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- had to be paid by the parents of Mangat Ram so that he could be freed from the theft case. On this, the parents of Mangat Ram expressed their inability to pay the amount and they went to the Police Station, Sri Vijaynagar for meeting their son (the complainant-respondent No. 2) where the Station House Officer Taja Ram Sharma also threatened them and demandeo Rs. 3,00,000/- for releasing their son. When the amount was not so paid, the petitioner Banwari Lal brought a blank stamp-paper and forcibly got the thumb impressions of father and other relatives of Mngat Ram on the blank document and also took away the papers of Khatedari land of the complainant's father with him. It is further alleged that thereafter the three accused executed a fraudulent agreement to sell of 5 bigha of land of complainant Mangat Ram's father in their favour. 3. The complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the learned Magistrate sent the complaint for inquiry to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Raisinghnagar, who inquired into the matter and submitted his report to the Court. A direction for further inquiry was made and on the report of further inquiry being received, the learned Magistrate has issued process against petitioner Banwari Lal for the offences under Sections 384 and 120-B I.P.C. vide impugned order dated 16.3.2004. 4. A direction for further inquiry was made and on the report of further inquiry being received, the learned Magistrate has issued process against petitioner Banwari Lal for the offences under Sections 384 and 120-B I.P.C. vide impugned order dated 16.3.2004. 4. Being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 16.3.2004 passed by the learned Magistrate summoning him as an accused, the petitioner Banwari Lal filed a revision petition, which too has been dismissed by the learned Revisional Court vide the impugned order dated 5.10.2006. 5. Assailing the said orders and all subsequent proceedings thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this matter, as a matter of fact, there was a land transaction between the parties and since the complainant was not satisfied with the money received in the land transaction and wanted to extort more money, the present complaint was filed. It has further been submitted that there is a civil suit pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar for execution of the sale agreement between petitioner Banwari Lal and the father of the complainant and as such the criminal proceedings in relation to very same document is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. It has further been submitted that subsequent to the order impugned being passed, the dispute has been settled between the parties and a compromise, which has been arrived at between the parties in the month of April 2010, has been placed on record of this miscellaneous petition. 6. In view of the above facts, it can be safely deduced that there is no dispute regarding the signatures on the document in question. Further more, the dispute, which was essentially a dispute of civil nature, has already been compromised between the parties as referred to above. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that in the background of the circumstances set out above, the continuing of the present criminal proceedings against the petitioner is unwarranted now, that the compromise has been filed on the record before this Court. 7. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed; the impugned order 16.3.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Vijaynagar issuing process against the petitioner and all subsequent proceedings in relation thereto for the offences under Sections 384 and 120-B I.P.C. are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******