JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 3. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State. 4. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceedings including First Information Report instituted against the present petitioner in connection with Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 340 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 4031/2012 registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code said to be pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M. at Ranchi. 5. As per the allegation made in the First Information Report dated 17.07.2012 which has been lodged by the informant/Manager of Kashish developers, on 06.12.2010, the petitioner along with Md. Athar and Kausar Ansari had approached the chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s Kashish Developers showing title deeds of land situated at village Chakla district Ranchi relating to Plot No. 982 (part), Plot No. 829 (part), Plot No. 907 (part) and Plot No. 247 (part) total area 51 decimals and proposed to sell the property to the company. The petitioner had shown registered sale -deeds being (a) sale deed no. 14491 dated 21.06.2010, (b) sale -deed no. 19474 dated 23.11.2009, (c) sale-deed no. 3436 dated 09.03.2009 in favour of Kausar Ansari and (d) sale-deed in the name of Nausad Ansari bearing no. 5326 dated 11.04.2009 and all the three named accused persons including the petitioner claimed that they are in possession of the entire 51 decimals of land and the title is clear . Consequently, the said company bought 51 decimal of land @ Rs. 35,000/- per decimal and paid advance amount of Rs. 18,50,095/- vide Cheque No. 627674 dated 22.12.2010. Thereafter, on 06.01.2011, the petitioner sold the entire 51 decimal of land by registered deed no. 125 dated 06.01.2011 in favour of the informant – company. It is also alleged that the accused also undertook to get land mutated in favour of the company. Thereafter, on 30.01.2012 the petitioner came to the office of the company and showed correction slip bearing no. 3024 R27/11-12 and rent receipt dated 27.01.2012. 125 dated 06.01.2011 in favour of the informant – company. It is also alleged that the accused also undertook to get land mutated in favour of the company. Thereafter, on 30.01.2012 the petitioner came to the office of the company and showed correction slip bearing no. 3024 R27/11-12 and rent receipt dated 27.01.2012. It is further alleged in the First Information Report that on 30.01.2012, the informant Manish Kumar along with others went to the land for construction of boundary wall and thereupon, the villagers namely Sameem Ansari, Neyaz Ali and 4 to 5 other persons claimed that they are the owners of the land and obstructed the construction of boundary wall. Upon this, the officials of the company showed the registered deed executed by the petitioner and photocopy of the deed executed by Md. Athar and Md. Kausar (the two named co-accused). The villagers claimed that the land never belonged to the vendors of the aforesaid three accused persons and the company has been defrauded by the execution of the sale-deeds. The said officers of the company went to the office of the Circle Officer , Ormanjhi and came to know that the rent receipt is being issued in the name of the recorded raiyats and without deducting the land of the earlier owners of the land , a separate mutation has been opened in the name of the company. When the company informed this to the petitioner and the co-accused and asked for refund of the amount of Rs. 18,50,095/-, then the petitioner and others repeatedly assured to return the money, but did not do so. 6. In the aforesaid background, the case was instituted against the petitioner and other co-accused who were named in the First Information Report under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically submitted that the entire dispute arises out of civil dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and no criminality as such is involved. He has also submitted that the land was transferred through registered deed by the petitioner in favour of opposite party no. 2-company . The learned counsel further submitted that as per the counter -affidavit filed by the State, the mutation has already been done in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and the opposite party no. He has also submitted that the land was transferred through registered deed by the petitioner in favour of opposite party no. 2-company . The learned counsel further submitted that as per the counter -affidavit filed by the State, the mutation has already been done in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and the opposite party no. 2 is in physical possession of the property involved in the present case. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 (State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.) and has referred to para 102 of the said judgement. He has submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the First Information Report as well as the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner is fit to be quashed to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that he has filed a detailed counter-affidavit stating that the vendors of the petitioner are also co-accused in the present case and there is deep conspiracy involved in the present case. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the petitioner and the co-accused handed over deed no. 14491 dated 21.06.2010; deed no. 19474 dated 23.11.2009 and deed no. 9374 dated 20.04.2010 standing in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner handed over sale deed no. 3436 dated 09.03.2009 standing in the name of co-accused Kausar Ansari and deed no. 5326 dated 11.04.2009 standing in the name of Nausad Ansari. 10. The opposite party no. 2 has referred to a number of registered deeds in the counter -affidavit and has tried to establish that the petitioner had given the documents which were prepared to cheat the company and the persons from whom the sale-deed was prepared in the name of the petitioner and the co-accused, are fake persons having no authority to sale the land. 2 has referred to a number of registered deeds in the counter -affidavit and has tried to establish that the petitioner had given the documents which were prepared to cheat the company and the persons from whom the sale-deed was prepared in the name of the petitioner and the co-accused, are fake persons having no authority to sale the land. It is also alleged that the petitioner himself approached the circle office and got correction slip and rent receipt issued illegally in connivance with the staffs of the circle office at Ormanjhi and the author of the sale-deeds are fake persons having no right, title, interest and possession of the land. 11. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has reiterated that not only the petitioner, but also the vendors of the petitioner are accused in the present case and accordingly, the First Information Report may not be quashed. It is submitted that First Information Report is not encyclopedia of the entire sequence of events. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party – State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the investigation of the case is still going on and at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioner. He has further submitted that there are sufficient materials and allegations against the petitioner and the present First Information Report may not be quashed and without completion of investigation, it cannot be argued at this stage that ex-facie no case is made out against the petitioner. He has submitted that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner from the allegations in the First Information Report. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that merely because the allegations in the First Information Report arise out of certain transactions of sale and purchase of land based on registered sale-deeds, the same does not mean that no criminal case can arise out of such transactions. 14. 14. This Court is of the considered view that upon perusal of the First Information Report it cannot be said that no criminal case at all is made out against the petitioner and that the entire allegation is in the realm of civil dispute particularly in a circumstance where not only the petitioner who is vendor of the sale-deed to the opposite party no. 2-company, but also the vendors of the petitioner are co-accused in the present case. This Court finds that the investigation of the case is still going on and unless the investigation is complete and the materials are put before the court, it would be premature to say that no criminal case is made out against the petitioner. 15. In the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 (State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.) , it has been held in para 102 and 103 as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 16. This Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner does not fall within any of the guidelines which have been enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 102 of the aforesaid report. This Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner does not fall within any of the guidelines which have been enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 102 of the aforesaid report. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Keeping in mind the aforesaid judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (Supra), this Court is of the considered view that no case for quashing of First Information Report has been made out by the petitioner. 17. Accordingly, the present petition for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the First Information Report against the petitioner, is hereby dismissed. 18. However, dismissal of this case will not prejudice the case of the petitioner before the learned court below and it will be open to the petitioner to raise all the points which have been raised in the present case before the learned court below at appropriate stage in accordance with law. 19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 20. Pending Interlocutory applications, if any, are closed. 21. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “Email/FAX”.