JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner is accused no. 5 in Complaint Case No. 1149 of 2015. She has moved this Court in an application under section 438 read with section 440 Cr. P.C. 2. By order dated 09.08.2017, a coordinate Bench of this Court has granted interim protection to the petitioner and this order has continued till date. 3. Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that a dispute which primarily is a civil dispute between the parties has been given colour of a criminal case. 4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, who is the complainant, submits that in the year, 2003 the petitioner along with other co-accused persons fraudulently secured a power of attorney with respect to a piece of land over which the executor had no right, title or interest and by virtue of such a power of attorney a sale-deed in favour of the accused persons was executed, knowing well that the complainant and his wife had already negotiated for sale of the land in dispute. The learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 refers to allegations in paragraph nos. 14 and 15 of the complaint, which read as under : "14. That, after purchase of the property the complainant came into peaceful possession. The land was encroached upon by one Indradeo Singh son of Yadunath Singh and were demanding huge amount of Rs. 30,00,000.00 as rangdari to vacate the land which stood reported to Lalpur police and other authorities on 03.09.14 against which proceeding u/s 107 and 144 Cr. P.C. was initiated. The said Indradeo Singh had disclosed the complainant that he had already possessed the land on the strength of one sale deed no. 6056 dated 29/10/2013 which was executed by the said Kalpana Chaterjee and Subir Kishore Banerjee through the constituted attorney Smt. Lakshmi Sah wife of Sunil Kumar Sah in her favour i.e. the attorney Lakshmi Sah was the purchaser as well. 15. That upon queries it was revealed that Kalpana Chatterjee who had already sold out her entire share in the year 2003 vide Sale Deed No. 11466 dated 18.12.03 out of the allotted chunk of land demarcated as A2 in the map attached with the final Decree passed in the original Partition Suit. 15. That upon queries it was revealed that Kalpana Chatterjee who had already sold out her entire share in the year 2003 vide Sale Deed No. 11466 dated 18.12.03 out of the allotted chunk of land demarcated as A2 in the map attached with the final Decree passed in the original Partition Suit. The other Vendor Subir Kishore Banerjee who has been Defendant No. 9A in the Partition Suit was never allotted with any share in the land demarcated as A2, A1 or C1 in the map attached with the final Decree passed in the original partition Kalpana Chatterjee and Subir Kishore Banerjee under conspiracy with each other along with Indradeo Singh, Vijay Singh, Laxmi Sah and Vijay Singh Yadav @ Alam inspite of having full knowledge that they are not entitled to sell the portion of land demarcated as A1, C1, A2 (South Eastern portion), portion of road falling in between land demarcated as A2 (South Eastern Flank of undivided land), A1 on one side and C1 on the other side with the use of deception and forgery got the Sale Deed No. 6056 dated 29.10.13 executed for which act of the accused persons the complainant sustained wrongful loss and the accused persons wrongful gain at the cost of the complainant. It is also pertinent to mention herein that inspite of the fact that there is no land demarcated as B1 and B2 in the original decree passed in the aforesaid partition suit, the same has been falsely created in the forged sale-deed dated 29.10.13 to insert accused No.2" 5. The facts recorded in the complaint reveal that the dispute involved in the case pertains to a piece of land demarcated as A2. The complainant himself admits that the sale-deed with respect to A2 land has been executed in favour of his wife on 30.10.2013 whereas a sale-deed in favour of the accused persons including the present petitioner was executed on 29.10.2013 itself. The case set-up by O.P. No. 2 is that the accused persons had knowledge of the "negotiation for sale" of A2 property with the complainant and his wife still, a sale-deed has been registered in favour of the accused persons. 6. In paragraph no. 13 of the complaint, the complainant has asserted as under : "13. That, the negotiations for the purchase of second chunk of land of plot no. 6. In paragraph no. 13 of the complaint, the complainant has asserted as under : "13. That, the negotiations for the purchase of second chunk of land of plot no. A2 was in the knowledge of accused persons and under such knowledge, they had hatched up a conspiracy with an intention to cheat the complainant." 7. Whether the accused persons had knowledge of the negotiation (para-13) with the complainant for sale of A2 property or not would be a matter which can be decided at the trial and at this stage on the above allegations protection u/s 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be declined to the petitioner. The narration of facts in the complaint disclose several complicated questions of fact. Moreover, registration of the sale-deed in favour of the present petitioner is prior to the sale-deed registered in favour of the wife of the complainant. In the aforesaid facts, I find a prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner for grant of privilege under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the interim order dated 09.08.2017 is confirmed. 8. By an order dated 26.10.2018, O.P. No. 2 was issued notice. Now, he has filed his reply which reads as under : "8. That besides this Annexure-8 will go to show that in the notice published for cause list dated 10.08.2017 i.e. Annexure-B with regards to Court No. 20 it was mentioned that the cases listed in supplementary cause list dated 09.08.2017 from serial nos. 23 to 56 except serial nos. 27 and 37 and thereafter unfixed cases of supplementary cause list dated 10.08.2017 shall be taken up. The case of the deponent was listed at serial no. 37 dated 09.08.2017 of the supplementary cause list. 9. That on such receipt of the notice to the cause list dated 10.08.2017, the deponent came to know about the judicial order passed on 09.08.2017, which is Annexure-C." 9. No doubt, O.P. No. 2 has tendered his unconditional apology and asserts that if anything has been stated by him in the counter-affidavit which has hurt the sentiment of the Hon''ble Court he again tenders his unqualified apology (paragraph no. 13 of his show-cause), he perhaps does not know that it is not the sentiment of the Court which decides the case. The Courts decide a case on the basis of the materials on record, in accordance with the law. 13 of his show-cause), he perhaps does not know that it is not the sentiment of the Court which decides the case. The Courts decide a case on the basis of the materials on record, in accordance with the law. O.P. No. 2 who claims that the notice issued to him though reflects the date of hearing as 16.09.2017 by virtue of order dated 09.08.2017, but the case was, in fact, listed on 14.09.2017, has forgotten, before he made a statement casting aspersion on the Registry, that he had already entered his appearance through his counsel and he was duly represented through his counsel on 14.09.2017 when the matter was listed for hearing and thus the said notice had become inconsequential. It was ignorance of O.P. No. 2 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001 that any notice issued to a party must give 30 days'' clear time for appearance of the party, which obviously was the reason why the date of hearing shown in the notice was not the date reflected in the judicial order. Such trivial matter, in my opinion, should not have been taken by O.P. No. 2 so far, however, giving him benefit of doubt notice issued to him stands recalled. 10. This application stands disposed of.