JUDGMENT : 1. In the instant application, the petitioners pray for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 02.09.2015 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 1438 of 2014, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offence under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 2. Having heard the learned counsels for both the parties and on going through the averment made in Complaint Case No. 1438 of 2014, it transpires that O.P. No. 2, i.e., the complainant has stated that the land, described in the complaint petition, was allotted to the share of his grand-father (late Bajrang Bihari Lal) in Partition Suit no. 98 of 1945. That during his life time, Late Bajrang Bihari Lal, partitioned the property amongst his four children i.e., his son, Sanat Kumar Lal, who is arrayed as an accused No.1 in the instant complaint case, and his three daughters namely, late Sifalika Prasad, late Swarn Rekha Lakhiyar (mother of O.P No.2) and Smt. Jyotsna Srivastava. Late Bajrang Bihari Lal died in the year 1980. In the complaint, reference has been made to the provisions of Hindu Succession Act of 1956, and it is stated that the mother of the complainant (O.P. no.2) was allotted a share in the said land. It is stated that on 09.05.2012, O.P. No.2 suffered brain haemorrhage and was admitted to hospital for treatment and his mother was attending and taking care of him. It is alleged that during the said period, his mama (maternal uncle) (accused no.1) i.e., Sanat Kumar Lal and his mami (maternal aunt), Prabha Sinha (co-accused) vide registered sale deed no. 6422/5609 dated 09.05.2012, transferred the land to the petitioners, i.e., accused no. 2 and 3 for a consideration amount of Rs.12,60,500/-. On being discharged from the hospital, when he returned home, his cousin mama and mami informed him that Sanat Kumar Lal and Prabha Sinha have sold the land, comprising the share of land belonging to his mother, to the petitioners. It is alleged that he approached the petitioners to return the land but they threatened and abused him. That he met his mama and mami and asked them to return the share of land belonging to his mother but they did not pay any heed. It is alleged that he approached the petitioners to return the land but they threatened and abused him. That he met his mama and mami and asked them to return the share of land belonging to his mother but they did not pay any heed. Thereafter, he approached the police authorities but they did not take any action, rather said that since the dispute was regarding the sale of land, therefore, he should approach the competent court. Accordingly, the complaint was lodged. 3. On perusal of the order dated 02.09.2015, it is evident that the court, on perusal of the complaint, and on the basis of the statement of O.P. No.2, has held that a prima facie case under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against all the four accused person. 4. Learned senior counsel has submitted that from the averments made in the complaint, and the statement of O.P. no.2 recorded on solemn affirmation, it would be evident, that there is no allegation that the petitioners had cheated the complainant-O.P. No.2 or had committed the criminal breach of trust or misappropriated any money. That in fact petitioner no.1 is a bonafide purchaser, and being the husband of petitioner no.2, signed as a witness identifying the vendor and vendee, of the sale deed. Petitioner No.1, is a bona fide purchaser who purchased the land on the basis of the document of title produced by the accused namely Sanat Kumar Lal i.e., the mama of O.P. No.2. 5. It is urged that it would be evident that O.P. No.2 (complainant) has not produced any documentary evidence in support of the fact and the plea that the land was recorded in the name of his mother. In fact, O.P. No.2 should have filed a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed and declaration of title. It is contended that if the averments made in the complaint and the statement of O.P. No.2 is presumed to be true, then also the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 6. It is contended that if the averments made in the complaint and the statement of O.P. No.2 is presumed to be true, then also the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel, on behalf of O.P. no.2, has submitted that on perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, and the statement of O.P. No.2 on solemn affirmation, the court below was satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for taking cognizance of the offences under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused person. It is contended that even in a case of civil dispute when the allegation constitutes a criminal offence then, the victim is not required to file a civil suit. It is submitted that non-filing of the civil suit cannot be a ground for disbelieving the allegations made in the complaint. It is urged that the order, dated 02.09.2015, is in accordance with law and it does not require any interference by this court. 7. Heard. No doubt under Section 190 Cr.P.C the court is empowered to take cognizance. It is well-settled proposition that while passing the order of taking cognizance the court is required to record its satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the materials on record. The court can sift and weigh the evidence for a limited purpose of arriving at the satisfaction that materials on record are sufficient to take cognizance of the offence. However, when the complaint does not make out any offence against the accused then the complaint is required to be dismissed. 8. On perusal of the impugned order and the allegation made in the complaint and the statement of the complainant, on solemn affirmation, it is evident that the complainant has alleged that the land belonging to the mother of the complainant was sold by his mama and mami, i.e., accused no. 1 and 4. There is no material on record, neither is it alleged that the petitioners had the knowledge that the land was allotted in the share of the mother of the complainant or that the vendor i.e., accused no.1 and 4 were not the owners or title holder of the land which was sold to petitioner No.1. 1 and 4. There is no material on record, neither is it alleged that the petitioners had the knowledge that the land was allotted in the share of the mother of the complainant or that the vendor i.e., accused no.1 and 4 were not the owners or title holder of the land which was sold to petitioner No.1. It is apparent that in answer to the court question, the complainant/O.P. No.2 has admitted that there was no documentary evidence, with respect to the title of the land, in the name of his mother. It is admitted by the complainant that the petitioners had paid Rs.12,60,500/-as consideration amount to his mama and mami, co-accused no.1 and 4 for purchase of the land. In such a situation the petitioners are the victims for the simple reason that, if, it is held that the vendors did not have the right, title and interest to the land then in that case, no valid title will pass to the purchasers because it is well settled principle that the transferor cannot transfer a better title than he has to the transferee. The exposited facts indicate that in either situation the petitioners are the victims. In fact the ingredients to constitute the offences under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against these petitioners. 9. Learned counsel has relied on the decision rendered in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others v. State of Bihar & Another; (2009) 8 SCC 751 , para 8 reads as under: “This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should esnure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes.” 10. For the foregoing reasons and the discussion made above, in the considered opinion of this court, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against these petitioners will only be an exercise in futility and an abuse of the process of court and law. For the foregoing reasons and the discussion made above, in the considered opinion of this court, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against these petitioners will only be an exercise in futility and an abuse of the process of court and law. Consequently, the order dated 02.05.2015 of taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.1438 of 2014, pending in the court below as against these petitioners is, hereby, quashed. 11. As a result this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.