ORAL ORDER Heard the parties. 2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.4.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Patna arising from Complaint Case No. 1653(C)/2008. whereby and whereunder the court below has taken cognizance for offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code 3. From the complaint petition it appears that the property in dispute is appertaining to plot No. 318, Khata No. 88, Tauji No. 523, area 23½ decimals of land situated at Mauza-Manorah (Allauddinchak) P.S.-Punpun, District-Patna. 4. It has been alleged, in Title Partition Suit No. 384 of 1996 the land in dispute was allotted in favour of the O.P. No. 2 who had/has been coming in peaceful possession over the said property along with other property with right, title and interest. It has further been alleged that he has been cultivating and growing the different crops. In said title suit, accused No. 1, Binay Singh and accused No. 2, Subodh Singh were also party and they were knowing fully well about allotment of the said land. They had/have a greedy eye over the plot No. 318 and they with dishonest intention and in order to have an illegal gain sold away the aforesaid property to the accused No. 3 to 6, namely, Rekha Devi, Rakhi Devi, Meena Devi and Susheela Devi in conspiracy with the accused No. 7, Anil Kumar Singh, present petitioner and Raj Kishore Singh, accused No. 8. It has further been stated that Anil Kumar Singh, present petitioner is the witness of all sale deeds and O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 have sold the land at low price. 5. The complainant has stated that the whole transactions are fraudulent and accused persons are liable to be prosecuted in the criminal case. On the basis of S.A. and the evidence, the court below vide order dated 17.4.2009 took cognizance of the offence under aforesaid sections. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not beneficiary nor he has sold the land rather he is only a witness to the sale deed executed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 so much so, the said judgment is under challenge before this Court in First Appeal Nos. 97/2012 and 349 of 2003 are pending before this Court for adjudication. 7. 1 and 2 so much so, the said judgment is under challenge before this Court in First Appeal Nos. 97/2012 and 349 of 2003 are pending before this Court for adjudication. 7. It has been submitted that the allegation made in the complaint case is basically a civil dispute so much so that there is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner. It has also been submitted, rent receipts are being issued by State of Bihar in favour of accused Nos. 1 and 2. The rent receipt issued by the State of Bihar showing the right, title and possession over the property. 8. The O.P. No. 2 has disputed the argument of the petitioner and submitted that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were knowing fully well that the land was allotted in their favour, by way of fraudulent act, have transferred the land to the O.P. Nos. 3 to 6. 9. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, it appears that the petitioner is merely a witness to the sale deed and he is not beneficiary, as neither he is a vendor nor he is a vendee. It appears that against the order of the trial court, the appeal is pending, as there is no allegation against petitioner of deriving any benefit. There is no allegation of forgery or impersonation and as such, petitioner has wrongly been arrayed as an accused in this case. 10. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 17.4.2009 against the petitioner is quashed and this petition is allowed. However, the court below will proceed with the matter against other accused persons.