ORDER : 1. By filing this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Om Prakash Chhawnika and Kumud Kumar Jha have challenged the order dated 26th March 2007 by which processes have been issued against them in Complaint Case No. 37 of 2007. The petitioners have also pleaded that the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 37 of 2007 reflect non-application of mind on the part of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi who overlooked the fact that the petitioners never impersonated any person and the complaint was tainted and actuated with mala fide and, therefore, liable to be quashed. 2. On the basis of the complaint petition filed by Janab Salim Sahab, Complaint Case No. 37 of 2007 (in short “C-37/07”) was registered which was made over to the Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi for inquiry under section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, T.R No. 108 of 2007 was instituted. In the inquiry proceedings, the statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation on 29th January 2007 and Jafar Alam was produced as a witness by the complainant to tender pre-summoning evidence on 2nd February 2007. By an order dated 8th March 2007, the Judicial Magistrate directed the complainant to produce the original records and, thereafter, cognizance of the offence under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code was taken on 26th March 2007. By the same order, the Judicial Magistrate directed issuance of processes under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused including the petitioners. 3. In the complaint petition, seven persons including Om Prakash Chhawnika and Kumud Kumar Jha are arrayed as accused who according to the complainant have committed the offence under sections 384, 488, 341, 420, 461 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. However, as noticed above, the Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence only under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused including the present petitioners have been summoned to face the trial. 4. However, as noticed above, the Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence only under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused including the present petitioners have been summoned to face the trial. 4. In the complaint case, it is stated that Ranu Priti Mukherjee claiming herself in exclusive possession over a piece of land comprised under Khata No. 43, RS Plot Nos.113, 1608 and 1609 situated at 62, Circular Road at Ranchi entered into an agreement to sale with the complainant on 14th June 1986 for a consideration of Rs.50 lakhs out of which Rs.2 lakhs shall be retained by the complainant to meet the legal expenses for making the subject lands litigation fee. The complainant pleaded that on part performance of the agreement he was put in physical possession and developed the subject lands spending a substantial amount. The complainant further stated that, in the meantime, Ranu Preeti Mukherjee passed away and in her place accused nos. 1 to 5 were substituted in T.S No. 35 of 1990 which was instituted by him for permanent injunction. According to the complainant, the accused nos.6 and 7 (who are the present petitioners) came to his house and asked to return the aforementioned agreement to sale and take back the part consideration amount paid by him. However, he refused the proposal whereupon the accused nos. 5 and 6 called some unknown anti-social elements and confined him and Jafar Alam in a room and hurled filthy abuses upon them. He further alleged that he was put to threat by the accused nos. 6 and 7 and asked to sign one blank non-judicial stamp paper and to save his life he signed the blank paper when the accused put a revolver on his head. He further alleged that the accused nos. 6 and 7 assaulted the labourers on 31st December 2006 who were engaged in construction work and declared that they have right, title and interest over the subject lands by virtue of a deed executed by the accused nos.1 to 5. 5. According to the complainant, the accused nos.1 to 5 had full knowledge about the execution of the agreement to sale dated 30th December 2006 but they executed a false and forged documents to dispossess him from the suit lands and have caused wrongful loss to him. 6. Mr. 5. According to the complainant, the accused nos.1 to 5 had full knowledge about the execution of the agreement to sale dated 30th December 2006 but they executed a false and forged documents to dispossess him from the suit lands and have caused wrongful loss to him. 6. Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint case was filed suppressing important facts and, in fact, the complainant himself is facing criminal prosecution in Complaint Case No. 717 of 2003 for executing an agreement to sale with Krishna Murari Singh, Binay Krishan Ray and Alok Kumar Gupta and the quash petition filed by him vide Cr.M.P No. 1413 of 2003 was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 2nd May 2007. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to an order passed by this Court in W.P(C) No. 1519 of 2006 by which the order passed in Title Suit No. 35 of 1990 rejecting the amendment petition has been affirmed by this Court. 7. However, the main plank of the petitioners is an order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P No. 309 of 2009 by which the criminal proceedings in the Complaint Case No. 37 of 2007 have been quashed qua Borendra Nath Mukherjee and Dipti Mukherjee. 8. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant who is O.P No. 2 in the present proceeding confined his arguments to the allegations made in the complaint petition against the accused nos. 6 and 7 who are the present petitioners to submit that at the stage of section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate is not required to look into the defence of the accused and upon finding a prima facie case on commission of an offence the Magistrate is obliged in law to issue processes under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. As noticed above, Borendra Nath Mukherjee and Dipti Mukherjee are the persons who have been substituted in place of Ranu Priti Mukherjee. In paragraph no. 5 of the complaint petition, there is an allegation that the accused nos.5 and 6 called some unknown antisocial elements to the house of the complainant and confined him and Jafar Alam in a room and hurled filthy abuses to them. In paragraph no. 5 of the complaint petition, there is an allegation that the accused nos.5 and 6 called some unknown antisocial elements to the house of the complainant and confined him and Jafar Alam in a room and hurled filthy abuses to them. In the same paragraph, there is an allegation against the accused nos.6 and 7 that they came to the house of the complainant and asked him to return the papers and, that, the accused put revolver on his head and forced him to sign a blank non-judicial stamp paper. 10. In Cr.M.P No. 309 of 2009 which was filed by the accused nos.4 and 5, this Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the accused nos. 4 and 5 observing as under: “9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that as per the complaint case itself, the agreement of sale was executed by lady Renu Priti Mukherjee, which was subject matter of injunction suit (Title Suit No. 35/1990), and inter alia accused nos. 4 and 5 were substituted in the suit being the legal heirs of Lady Renu Priti Mukherjee. This Court further finds that when the agreement was entered into by Lady Renu Priti Mukherjee, at that point of time, these petitioners had admittedly no role to play, so there is no allegation of any deception much less any deception since beginning from the stage of entering into the agreement, so far as accused nos. 4 and 5 (petitioners) are concerned. 10. Admittedly, the Title Suit was decided on 12.09.2008 during the pendency of the present criminal prosecution and it was held that the said lady had no right to enter into agreement for sale. This was subject matter of Title Appeal No. 112/08, dismissed vide Judgment dated 21.10.11 with an observation that legality and validity of agreement has to be considered in the pending suit for specific performance of contract. So far as accused nos.4 and 5 (Petitioners) are concerned, the only allegation which has been made, is contained in Para-6, 7 and 8 of the complaint petition, which reads as follows: “6. So far as accused nos.4 and 5 (Petitioners) are concerned, the only allegation which has been made, is contained in Para-6, 7 and 8 of the complaint petition, which reads as follows: “6. That on 31.12.06 the Complainant was doing some construction work the accused No. 6 to 7 came and assaulted the labourers on protest by the Complainant the accused Nos.6 and 7 told that they have every right and title by virtue of deed executed by accused Nos. 1 to 5. 7. That the accused Nos.1 to 5 with full knowledge regarding the agreement executed false and forged document only to disposses the complainant causing wrongful loss to the complainant and to defend the decree which might be passed in the suit. 8. That the accused persons by forging a deed caused the complainant mental tension and agony and rendered themselves for a prosecution.” 11. From perusal of the aforesaid allegation, inter alia against accused nos. 4 and 5, the only allegation is that they have executed certain deed along with others in favour of accused Nos.6 and 7 to dispossess the complaint and to defend the decree which might be passed in suit. This Court further finds that absolutely vague allegations have been levelled inter alia against accused nos. 4 and 5 and the entire matter relates to pure civil dispute which itself was admittedly subject matter of title suit in connection with the property. 12. This Court finds that the basic elements to constitute a case under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code is absent against the accused nos.4 and 5, who are the petitioners before this Court. There is no element of deception much less any deception from very beginning as against the petitioners so as to attract any offence under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code. 13. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings as well as the order taking cognizance dated 26.03.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 37 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, against the petitioners is hereby set-aside.” 11. 13. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings as well as the order taking cognizance dated 26.03.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 37 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, against the petitioners is hereby set-aside.” 11. No doubt, one of the grounds urged on behalf of the accused nos.4 and 5 was that the offence under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out inasmuch as they cannot be held to have cheated any person by deceiving him or inducing him fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property or to consent that such person shall retain any property. But, the fact of the matter remains that the allegation against the petitioners forms part of the same occurrence which is narrated in paragraph no. 5 of the complaint petition and cognizance of the offence only under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken by the Court. There are further allegations against the present petitioners but in support thereof any evidence at pre-summoning stage was not produced by the complainant. 12. The order passed in Cr.M.P No. 309 of 2009 has not been challenged by the complainant and, therefore, the same can be looked into by the Court in a proceeding under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is too well settled a law that the High Court exercising powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can look into any unimpeachable document so as to arrive at a just conclusion. 13. In Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd. (2008) 13 SCC 678 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “22. Ordinarily, a defence of an accused although appears to be plausible should not be taken into consideration for exercise of the said jurisdiction. Yet again, the High Court at that stage would not ordinarily enter into a disputed question of fact. It, however, does not mean that documents of unimpeachable character should not be taken into consideration at any cost for the purpose of finding out as to whether continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of court or that the complaint petition is filed for causing mere harassment to the accused. It, however, does not mean that documents of unimpeachable character should not be taken into consideration at any cost for the purpose of finding out as to whether continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of court or that the complaint petition is filed for causing mere harassment to the accused. While we are not oblivious of the fact that although a large number of disputes should ordinarily be determined only by the civil courts, but criminal cases are filed only for achieving the ultimate goal, namely, to force the accused to pay the amount due to the complainant immediately. The courts on the one hand should not encourage such a practice; but, on the other, cannot also travel beyond its jurisdiction to interfere with the proceeding which is otherwise genuine. The courts cannot also lose sight of the fact that in certain matters, both civil proceedings and criminal proceedings would be maintainable.” 14. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, the order dated 26th March 2007 issuing processes to the petitioners, namely, Om Prakash Chhawnika and Kumud Kumar Jha is set aside qua them and, consequently, the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 37 of 2007 are quashed qua the petitioners. 15. Cr.M.P No. 858 of 2007 is allowed.