JUDGMENT : Cr.M.P No. 91 of 2009 has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 228 of 2002 including the order dated 24.09.2002 whereby the cognizance of the offences under Sections 467/468/471/474 and 120-B of IPC has been taken against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case. 2. It has been alleged in Complaint Case No. 228 of 2002 that the accused persons including the petitioner out of a criminal conspiracy prepared several forged affidavits purported to have been executed by the complainant in Hazaribagh and the said forged affidavits were used to execute the sale deed of the land of Dharamsi Mauji Mistri who died intestate and the properties left by him devolved upon the legal heirs including the complainant. 3. Cr.M.P No. 1187 of 2009 has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 282 of 2008 including the order dated 19.12.2008 whereby the cognizance of the offences under Sections 323/384/420 of I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid case. 4. It has been alleged in the Complaint Case No. 282 of 2008 that the complainant is living at Jhumari Telaiya and has some landed properties at his native village at Anjar, District Kachchh (Gujarat). The petitioners requested the complainant to exchange his land with their land and they also agreed to pay him the consideration amount which was agreed by the complainant. As per the assurance of the petitioners, the complainant went to his native place and an agreement was executed between them on 03.02.2005. It has further been alleged that the petitioners took the possession of the complainant’s land but they did not pay the consideration amount as agreed and also did not execute sale deed of their land in favour of the complainant in exchange. After execution of agreement dated 03.02.2005, the attitude of the petitioners got changed. Thereafter, the complainant published a notice on 11.05.2008 in local newspaper showing nature of the land as disputed one. Despite the said fact, the petitioners sold the land of the complainant. The complainant requested the petitioners to come to Jhumari Telaiya to resolve the matter and they also came there on 15.05.2008. Thereafter, the complainant published a notice on 11.05.2008 in local newspaper showing nature of the land as disputed one. Despite the said fact, the petitioners sold the land of the complainant. The complainant requested the petitioners to come to Jhumari Telaiya to resolve the matter and they also came there on 15.05.2008. They admitted their guilt and agreed to execute the sale deed in exchange of their land but the complainant demanded the money whereupon the petitioners got furious. They abused the complainant and also assaulted him. It has also been alleged that the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 took out revolver and forcibly got the signature of the complainant on some blank paper. Before fleeing away, they threatened him and his family members with dire consequences, if any case is filed in this regard. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant has suppressed the true facts while filing the complaint. The petitioners had purchased the land in question from Ashish Javahar Dharamshi Mistri who had got the right as vendor after surrender of the rights in his favour by other co-heirs including the father of the complainant namely Kushal Chandra Jethwa @ Kushal Chandra Dharmshi Mistri by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 04.06.2001. The complainant’s father and other co-sharer jointly filed a title suit being Sp. Civil Suit No. 08/2001 in the Court of Civil Judge, Anjar-Kachchh. However, the dispute was settled and a sale deed dated 03.02.2005 was executed in favour of the petitioners through the complainant being a power of attorney of the seller and the consideration amount was also paid to the seller. After execution of the sale deed, the suit was withdrawn on 30.08.2005 and the complainant and other plaintiffs admitted the right, title and interest of the petitioners over the landed property. It is further submitted that the instant case has been filed with malafide intention and ulterior motive. Neither any summon nor any notice was served to the petitioners and they came to know about the case only after issuance of warrant of arrest against them. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. It is further submitted that the instant case has been filed with malafide intention and ulterior motive. Neither any summon nor any notice was served to the petitioners and they came to know about the case only after issuance of warrant of arrest against them. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, in both cases, submits that the allegations made in both the complaints sufficiently disclose the offences against the petitioners and as such the present proceeding need not be quashed at this stage in exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that all the grounds raised by the petitioners may be agitated before the court below at an appropriate stage of the proceeding. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. So far allegations levelled in Complaint Case No. 228 of 2002 are concerned, it is evident from the record that one Civil Case being Sp. Civil Suit No. 08/2001 was filed challenging the execution of sale deed dated 04.06.2001. However during pendency of the said suit, the matter was compromised and the complainant with other legal heirs executed sale deed dated 03.02.2005 in favour of the petitioners of both the cases for the land in question. In view of the said fact, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the continuance of Complaint Case no. 228 of 2002 would be an abuse of the process of the court and the same may be quashed in the ends of justice. 8. So far Complaint Case No. 282 of 2008 is concerned, it has been alleged against the petitioners that they agreed to exchange their land orally with the land of the complainant and also agreed to pay consideration amount but after execution of the written agreement and taking the possession of the land of the complainant, they deviated from their stand and neither paid the consideration amount nor executed the sale deed in exchange of their land. It has further been alleged that the petitioners hatched conspiracy and got the sale deed of the complainant’s land executed in their name. 9. It has further been alleged that the petitioners hatched conspiracy and got the sale deed of the complainant’s land executed in their name. 9. To appreciate the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I have perused the sale deed dated 03.02.2005 executed by the heirs of Dharmshi Mavji Mistri Jethwa through their power of attorney holder namely Tushar Khushalchandra Jethwa who is the complainant of Complaint Case No. 282 of 2008 along with Girdharilal Dharamsi Mistri Jethwa and Tulsi Dharmshri Mistri Jethwa. It has specifically been stated in the said sale deed that earlier a sale deed was executed on 04.06.2001 and the sale deed in question was being executed to confirm the title of the petitioners over the said land and while executing the said sale deed, the vendors had received an extra consideration amount of Rs. 3,35,000/-. There was no such averment in the said sale deed that the petitioners had agreed to exchange their land in lieu of the said transfer. Moreover, I find several contradictory facts in the averment made in the complaint and the documents filed by the complainants of both the cases in support of their case. On the one hand, the complainant in Complaint Case No. 282 of 2008 has claimed that on 03.02.2005, an agreement was executed between him and the petitioners, however it appears from the record that the sale deed of the land in question was though executed on 03.02.2005 but subsequent to the execution of the said sale deed, the civil suit which was filed challenging the right, title and interest over the property in question was withdrawn on 30.08.2005. So far as the occurrence dated 15.05.2008 alleged to have taken place at the instance of the petitioners at Jhumari Tilaiya is concerned, the same appears to be a concocted one just to implicate the petitioners in the present cases. The alleged incident is highly improbable as the civil suit itself was withdrawn on 30.08.2005. However, the said fact was not brought to the notice of the court even at that time. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the present criminal proceedings appear to be a misuse of the process of court and as such the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 228 of 2002 including the order of cognizance dated 24.09.2002 (Cr.M.P. no. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the present criminal proceedings appear to be a misuse of the process of court and as such the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 228 of 2002 including the order of cognizance dated 24.09.2002 (Cr.M.P. no. 91 of 2009) as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 282 of 2008 including the order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2008 (Cr.M.P. no. 1187 of 2009) are, hereby, quashed and set aside. 11. Both the petitions are accordingly allowed.