JUDGMENT : 1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.405 of 2008 (T.R. No.1039 of 2009), including the order dated 16th January, 2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi by which cognizance of offences under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner. 2. The brief background of the case as culled out from the petition is that the opposite party no.2 instituted a complaint being Complaint Case no.405 of 2008 against the petitioner, alleging, inter alia, that the opposite party no.2 was in peaceful possession of the dwelling house, known as ‘Gangotri’ under R.S. Plot no.487(B) in Mauja Hatma, under Lalpur police station, Thana no.200, District Ranchi, corresponding to Ranchi Municipal Holding no.208 under Ward no.18, having total area of 13 Kathas. A partition suit being Partition Suit no.200 of 1993 was filed by the brother of the opposite party no.2, namely, Sanjiv Sinha, however, during pendency of the said suit he died and the suit got abated. After about four years, the petitioner was impleaded as party to the aforesaid partition suit on the basis of a registered sale deed. When the opposite party no.2 came to know about such a sale deed, she made the aforesaid complaint with an allegation that the said sale deed is a false and fabricated document in order to grab her undivided dwelling house. The complainant was examined on oath on 15th February, 2008. Three more enquiry witnesses were produced by the complainant in support of her allegation. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 16th January, 2009 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Sub Judge, Ranchi passed the judgment dated 2nd March, 1994 in Partition Suit no.200 of 1993 and a preliminary decree was prepared for the half share of the aforesaid dwelling house. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Sub Judge, Ranchi passed the judgment dated 2nd March, 1994 in Partition Suit no.200 of 1993 and a preliminary decree was prepared for the half share of the aforesaid dwelling house. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the said share of Sanjiv Sinha by registered sale deed dated 26th March, 2002, but before preparation of the final decree, he died and as such the petitioner filed an application on 23rd August, 2004 for impleading her as plaintiff in place of Late Sanjiv Sinha, which was allowed by the learned Sub Judge vide order dated 27th January, 2006. It is further submitted that a preliminary decree was prepared on the own admission of the defendants (opposite party no.2 and her father). The consideration money in relation to the sale deed was paid through demand draft and without examining the fact that the money was credited to the account of Late Sanjiv Sinha, it cannot be alleged that the signature of Late Sanjiv Sinha is false and fabricated. The issue with regard to the genuineness of the sale deed can be adjudicated by a Civil Court in the suit pending for preparation of final decree and as such the instant criminal proceeding is not maintainable at all. Even if the allegations made in the complaint are considered on the face of it, unless a finding is given by the learned Sub Judge with respect to the alleged forgery committed during pendency of the said suit, no separate criminal proceeding is tenable in law in view of the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate has erroneously taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code particularly when the matter is still pending before the learned Sub Judge, Ranchi. The entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner at the instance of opposite party no.2 is absolutely false and malicious with an intention to grab the entire property and to put the preliminary decree passed by the learned Sub Judge in jeopardy, which was passed on the basis of own admission of the opposite party no.2 herself taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner’s vendor i.e. Late Sanjiv Sinha died before preparation of the final decree in the partition suit. It is lastly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that continuance of the criminal proceeding as against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of Court and as such the same may be set aside. 4. On the contrary, the opposite party no.2 appears in person before this Court and submits that no sale deed was executed by her brother-Late Sanjiv Sinha during his lifetime with respect to the said dwelling house. The petitioner has, in fact, fraudulently and dishonestly used a photostat copy of the ex-facie false and forged document as a genuine one to cheat with full knowledge that the same is a false document, taking advantage of death of Late Sanjiv Sinha. The opposite party no.2 contends that there was a unity of title in the said house property between the her and Late Sanjiv Sinha being sister and brother respectively and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that Late Sanjiv Sinha would have executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Since there was no partition by metes and bounds, the demarcation of half portion of the said property was never done and said fact was well within the knowledge of her brother. She has alleged in her complaint that the signature of her brother-Late Sanjiv Sinha appearing in the sale deed completely varies from his actual signature, as would be evident from his passport. It is, thus, submitted by the opposite party no.2 that it is not a case of exercising the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order of cognizance and the criminal proceeding instituted by her against the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. The thrust of the argument of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the share of Late Sanjiv Sinha by virtue of registered sale deed for a valuable consideration. On the contrary, the opposite party no.2 has challenged the genuineness of the sale deed by putting a serious doubt on the signature of Late Sanjiv Sinha appearing in the same. The opposite party no.2 has also alleged that the description of the sale deed does not tally with the actual undivided residential house over which she has been in peaceful possession. The opposite party no.2 has also alleged that the description of the sale deed does not tally with the actual undivided residential house over which she has been in peaceful possession. The learned court below after perusing the contents of the complaint and considering the statements of the opposite party no.2 as well as the statements of the enquiry witnesses, found a prima facie case against the petitioner and thus took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the issue of genuineness of the sale deed can appropriately be decided by the Civil Court in the partition suit, which is pending for preparation of final decree and as such the instant criminal proceeding is not maintainable. 7. To appreciate the aforesaid contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to go through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Limited & Ors., reported in (2006)6 SCC 736 , wherein it has been held as under:- “12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few—Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [ (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [ (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] , Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [ (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045] , State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [ (1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628] , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [ (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] , Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [ (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615] , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [ (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] , M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [ (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [ (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” It would thus emerge that even if a civil remedy available to an aggrieved person, it does not oust the jurisdiction of a criminal court to proceed with the complaint if the same prima facie discloses commission of criminal offence by an accused on the given facts. 8. It has next been contended on behalf of the petitioner that vide judgment dated 2nd March, 1994 passed by the learned Sub Judge in Partition Suit no.200 of 1993, the half share of the petitioner’s vendor (Late Sanjiv Sinha) was confirmed and only thereafter she purchased the said share of Late Sanjiv Sinha. As such, the question of any forgery on the part of the petitioner does not arise. 9. The opposite party no.2, while strongly refuting the said contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the family settlement dated 30th April, 1965 executed by the mother of the opposite party no.2 and Late Sanjiv Sinha, namely, Smt. Aruna Sinha. According to the said family settlement, Smt. Aruna Sinha had not made partition of the said property by metes and bounds and there was a unity of title between the petitioner and Late Sanjiv Sinha in the said house property. The opposite party no.2 at the time of argument produces the copies of family settlements dated 1st March, 1977 and 1st December, 2000 and also an application dated 28th March, 2002 written by Late Sanjiv Sinha to the Circle Officer, Ranchi, which are taken on record. She refers to the said family settlements dated 1st March, 1977 and 1st December, 2000 in support of her contention that Late Sanjiv Sinha had relinquished his right upon the said dwelling house in favour of the opposite party no.2 and had also made application dated 28th March, 2002 to the Circle Officer, Ranchi Circle, Ranchi to the effect that the said property may be mutated in the name of the opposite party no.2. While relying on the aforesaid documents, the opposite party no.2 has assiduously contended that the sale deed in question has not at all been executed by her brother-Late Sanjiv Sinha, as he was fully aware that he did not have any exclusive title upon the said property flowing from the family settlement deeds dated 1st March, 1977 and 1st December, 2000 and, thus, the sale deed was executed in a fraudulent manner. The opposite party no.2 while substantiating her argument, has placed reliance on paragraph-6 of the judgment dated 2nd March, 1994 passed by the learned Sub Judge-V, Ranchi in the partition suit, which is reproduced herein below:- “6. Having considered the factum of half 2 share of the plaintiff and deft. No. 1 in the undivided suit property and admission having been made by the deft. No. 1 about the half share of her brother in the same it is held that both the parties have got equal share in the suit property and there is unity of title and community of possession between the parties with regard to the suit property and under such state of affairs the plaintiff is entitled to get partition in this suit to the extent of his half share.” 10. From the contents of the judgment dated 2nd March, 1994, it would appear that the learned Sub Judge-V, Ranchi had accepted the unity of title of the opposite party no.2 and Late Sanjiv Sinha upon the said dwelling house and accordingly observed that both the parties have equal share in the same. It has specifically been alleged in the complaint that the petitioner in order to fraudulently grab her dwelling house prepared a forged document wherein the purported signature of her brother- Late Sanjiv Sinha did not match with his actual signature made in the passport. The opposite party no.2 has also submitted that the sale deed in question was executed on 23rd June, 2002, whereas Sanjiv Sinha died in the year 2004. However, neither the petitioner nor Sanjiv Sinha till his death had put the fact of the execution of the sale deed to the knowledge of the learned Sub Judge, though the partition suit was still pending for preparation of final decree. However, neither the petitioner nor Sanjiv Sinha till his death had put the fact of the execution of the sale deed to the knowledge of the learned Sub Judge, though the partition suit was still pending for preparation of final decree. It has also been alleged by the opposite party no.2 in her complaint that the actual description of the property does not match with the description mentioned in the sale deed, which also creates serious doubt on the genuineness of the same. 11. It would, thus, appear from the aforesaid contentions that both the sides have their own case to argue. However, while hearing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this court cannot conclusively adjudicate upon the rival contentions. All the aforesaid factual averments are required to be examined by the learned court below at appropriate stage of the case. 12. Learned court below has passed the order of cognizance taking into consideration the averments made in the complaint as well as the statements of the opposite party no.2 on oath and her enquiry witnesses and, thus, the same does not require any interference at this stage, as prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner. 13. In the case of Rajiv Thapar Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, reported in (2013)3 SCC 330 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position that in a case where the prosecution/ complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held. 29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's/ complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.” 14. It has been held in the aforesaid judgment that even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial, as the same would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. 15. The very purpose of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to prevent an abuse of process of court and to secure the ends of justice. The power of quashing of a criminal proceeding should be exercised by the High Court sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The High Court while hearing a quashing petition is not supposed to embark upon the enquiry as to the genuineness and reliability of the complainant. Moreover, the learned court below at the stage of cognizance is only required to go through the complaint, peruse the statements of the complainant on oath and the enquiry witnesses and, thereafter, to pass an order of cognizance if the said allegation prima facie makes out a case against an accused. The defence of an accused is to be taken into consideration at subsequent stage in terms with the provisions of Cr.P.C. 16. It is a settled proposition of law that while considering the case for quashing of a criminal proceeding, the High Court should not put an appropriate prosecution to an end prematurely unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. 17. It is a settled proposition of law that while considering the case for quashing of a criminal proceeding, the High Court should not put an appropriate prosecution to an end prematurely unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. 17. Since in the present case, a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the materials brought on record by the opposite party no.2 before the learned court below, I see no reason to quash the order of cognizance dated 16th January, 2009 as well as the criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.405 of 2008 (T.R. No.1039 of 2009). This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 18. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all possible points available in her defence at an appropriate stage before the learned court below. 19. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove is confined to the present case filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and would not in any manner influence the proceeding of Complaint Case No.405 of 2008 (T.R. No.1039 of 2009) pending before the learned court below. 20. Interim order dated 15th April, 2009 stands vacated.