JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P.Case No.104 of 2016, including the order dated 04.02.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Bokaro, whereby cognizance under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken on the complaint filed by the Opposite party no.2 and summons have been issued against the accused person including the petitioner, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Bokaro. 2. O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint, alleging therein that: The opposite party no.2 namely Ambuj Choudhary filed a complaint before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, on 04.02.2016. The same was registered as C.P.Case No.104 of 2016. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as an accused no.5 in the said complaint case. The allegation in short, is that the accused nos.1 to 3 by misrepresenting themselves as the legal heirs and representatives of the recorded tenant of the land pertaining to Plot No.460, Khata No.55, Village Rangamatiya, Thana Chandankiyari, Thana No.254, District Bokaro, measuring 29.25 acres have executed a Sale Deed dated 12.11.2015 in favour of M/s Rungta Mines Limited. 3. It has been further alleged that the accused nos.4 and 5 (petitioner herein) have also conspired and a forged genealogical table was also prepared, for the joint property of the complainant and their witnesses and over which the complainant and their witnesses are in possession. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this petitioner has signed the sale deed as representative capacity of the company namely, M/s Rungta Mines Limited. He submits that the petitioner is signatory of the company which has purchased the land in question on payment of consideration amount of Rs.30 Lakhs. He submits that the allegations are against the accused nos. 1 and 4 with regard to selling the land in question fraudulently and O.P.no.2 is the owner. He submits that inspite of payment of consideration amount possession of the land is not in favour of the petitioner and for that, against the sellers the company has also filed the case. He submits that so far this petitioner is concerned, no criminality is made out particularly section 420 IPC. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mohd. He submits that so far this petitioner is concerned, no criminality is made out particularly section 420 IPC. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar”, (2009) 8 SCC 751 , paragraph nos.16 to 21 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner’s behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of “false documents”, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. 17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted. Section 420 IPC 18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted. Section 420 IPC 18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 19. To constitute an offence under Section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security). 20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. 21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner.” 5. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that there are allegations and that is why the learned court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner and this Court may not interfere at this stage under section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. The Court has perused the entire materials on record and considering the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, finds that in the entire complaint, there is no allegation of inducing or alluring so far as the signatory of the company is concerned. The sale deed contained in Annexure-4 clearly suggest that four persons have sold the land to the company and the petitioner accepted it as a signatory of the company on behalf of the purchaser. The consideration amount is to the tune of Rs.30,88,300/- was paid. Looking into the judgment in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (supra), it transpires that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the case has observed that that there was a growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature and at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. Considering the aforesaid ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Court finds that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. In paragraph no.18 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered section 420 IPC. Considering the aforesaid ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Court finds that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. In paragraph no.18 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered section 420 IPC. In the case in hand, it is not a case of the complainant that this petitioner tried and deceived either by making false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission nor it is the case that he offered any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property. 7. In view of the above facts, the reasons and analysis, the cognizance order dated 04.02.2017 as well as the complaint being C.P.Case No.104 of 2016, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Bokaro, so far as this petitioner is concerned, is hereby, quashed. 8. Cr.M.P. No. 1619 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of. 9. It is made clear that the Court has not interfered with the allegations of accused nos.1 to 4 and this order is confined to this petitioner only. 10. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.