JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in C.R. No. 840 of 2001/T.R. No. 1129 of 2002 including order dated 12.12.2001, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Darbhanga has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga vide C.R. No. 840 of 2001 against seven accused persons which include petitioners, on accusation of commission of offence under Sections 420, 464, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that one Abdul Rahman had transferred the portion of his land and a house by registered sale deed in favour of the complainant in the year 1989 and thereafter, he was in peaceful possession over the property in question. It was alleged that son of brother-in-law of Md. Ibrahim (uncle of complainant) i.e. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 conniving with other accused persons including opposite party nos. 6 and 7, sons of late Abdui Rahman and his daughter Bibi Jamila, Accused No. 5 (wife of Md. Chhedi) got the said land of the complainant transferred through sale deed in favour of Accused No.1 Most. Sabulan i.e. petitioner no.1 on 21.7.2001. It was further alleged that on verification, it transpired that accused persons had also got prepared a forged Death Certificate of late Abdul Rahman and on the basis of the said fake death certificate, subsequent sale deed was got prepared. After filing the complaint petition, the matter was enquired into and after conducting enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, by its order dated 12.12.2001, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for summoning the accused persons including the petitioners to face the trial. 3. Aggrieved with the order dated 12.12.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Darbhanga in C.R. No, 840 of 2001/T.R. No.1129 of 2002, the aforesaid petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 22.11.2002 and Lower Court Record was called for. 4. Mr. 3. Aggrieved with the order dated 12.12.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Darbhanga in C.R. No, 840 of 2001/T.R. No.1129 of 2002, the aforesaid petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 22.11.2002 and Lower Court Record was called for. 4. Mr. Farooque Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while pressing the present petition, has argued that from the contents of the complaint petition itself, it is evident that the complainant, in a pure civil dispute, has initiated a criminal proceeding, which is not permissible in the eye of law. It was submitted by Mr. Khan that two sons and daughter of late Abdul Rahman, who were having title and possession over the land in question, after the death of their father, had legally and rightly transferred the land in question through registered sale deed in favour of petitioner no.1 on 21.7.2001. It was submitted that father of petitioner nos. 2 to 3 had died on 20.2.1988 and since he died in the year 1988 itself, the claim of the complainant that father of petitioner nos, 2 to 3 had executed sale deed in respect of the land in question in favour of the complainant in the year 1989 is itself falsified. It was submitted by Mr. Khan that the complainant is having ill-motive to grab the land of petitioner no.1 by hook and crook and as such in a calculated manner, the present complaint petition was filed, which prima facie, appears to be a dispute of civil in nature. The petitioner no.1 had taken the land in question by virtue of the sale deed executed by the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4, who were daughter and sons respectively of late Abdul Rahman. Mr. Khan has argued that entire criminal proceeding is liable to be set aside firstly on the ground that dispute is purely a civil dispute and secondly, the proceeding was malicious. Mr. Khan, in support of his argument, has relied on a case law reported in A.I.R. 1992 SC 604 (State of Haryana V/s. Bhajan Lal). It was submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case is covered by the categories specified by the Apex Court, which can be set aside at initial or interlocutory stage of a criminal proceeding. Mr. It was submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case is covered by the categories specified by the Apex Court, which can be set aside at initial or interlocutory stage of a criminal proceeding. Mr. Khan has also relied on a Single Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2003(3) PUR 605 (Abdul Bari V/s. State of Bihar). On aforesaid ground, it has been prayed to set aside the entire criminal proceeding including order of cognizance dated 12.12.2001 passed in C.R. No. 840 of 2001/T.R. No.1129 of 2002. 5. Shri Sanjeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2/complainant, has strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Learned counsel has referred to number of paragraphs of counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2. It was submitted that the petitioners firstly got prepared a forged and fictitious death certificate of late Abdul Rahman and thereafter, they have got the deed executed in favour of petitioner no.1 by petitioner nos. 2 to 4, who were daughter and sons of late Abdul Rahman. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 further submits that in between the parties, there was a long history of cases and counter case and in chain of those cases, there were one case i.e. T.R. No.155 of 1994/G.R. No.1917 of 1989. It was submitted that in the said case, the sale deed dated 27.5.1989, which was executed by the father of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 was got exhibited. Similarly, there were other proceedings also to suggest that the said death certificate, copy of which has been brought on record before this Court vide Annexure-2 to the petition, was a forged and fictitious document and as such it was submitted that the accused persons conniving with each other had got a subsequent sale deed prepared in respect of the land and house, which was already sold to the complainant by father of petitioner nos. 2 to 4. Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the present petition. 6. Shri Raj Ballabh Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the materials available on record. After going through the contents of the complaint petition as well as certain facts, which have been brought on record by opposite party no. 6. Shri Raj Ballabh Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the materials available on record. After going through the contents of the complaint petition as well as certain facts, which have been brought on record by opposite party no. 2, the court is convinced that dispute in between the parties were going on since long. So far as allegation made in the complaint petition is concerned, the court is of the opinion that best course available to the complainant was to approach the court of civil jurisdiction. Prima facie, the dispute in between the parties appears to be purely civil dispute for which criminal court may not be allowed to be abused. Moreover, the opposite party no. 2, by filing a counter affidavit, has also admitted the fact that there is a history of cases and counter case between both the parties in such situation, the court is of the opinion that criminal court may not be allowed to be abused and as such the order of cognizance as well as entire proceeding is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, order of cognizance dated 12.12.2001 passed in C.R. No. 840 of 2001/T.R. No.1129 of 2002 including entire criminal proceeding in C.R. No. 840 of 2001 is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed.