JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Revision No 97/2015 and for quashing of order dated 29.06.2022 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palamau whereby cognizance in connection with Complainant Case No. 585/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 423/420/467/468/ 471/143/147/447/323/342/504 of IPC has been taken inter alia against the petitioners. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 purchased land belonging to the complainant-informant from the accused Rahul Kumar Choubey and Rohit Kumar Choubey though Rahul Kumar Choubey and Rohit Kumar Choubey did not have any right, title and interest for executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and on 16.12.2012, the petitioners armed with sharp cutting weapons, obstructed the cultivation work of the complainant and threatened to assault him and scuffled with him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits relying upon the Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 , para 8 of which, reads as under:- “8. 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 ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But 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. (See G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [ (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] and Indian Oil Corpn. (See G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [ (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [ (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188]) Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind.” Submits that in this case, undisputedly, Rahul Kumar Choubey and Rohit Kumar Choubey are claiming that the property conveyed is their property and there is no allegation of any impersonation hence, Rahul Kumar Choubey and Rohit Kumar Choubey were under bonafide belief that the property sold by them to the petitioners; actually belongs to them. The petitioner no. 1 and 2 are the purchasers of the property hence no offence punishable under Sections 423/420/467/468 of IPC is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the disputed fact remains that the property after being purchased by the petitioner no. 1 and 2 has been mutated in their name and the correction slip has been issued in their favour, the copy of which has been kept as page 89 and 94 of the brief, which are the documents of unimpeachable character, being the certified copy of the concerned correction slip issued by the Circle Officer, Bishrampur Circle. 5. 1 and 2 has been mutated in their name and the correction slip has been issued in their favour, the copy of which has been kept as page 89 and 94 of the brief, which are the documents of unimpeachable character, being the certified copy of the concerned correction slip issued by the Circle Officer, Bishrampur Circle. 5. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 143/147 of the IPC is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 143 and 147 of IPC, the essential ingredient is that the accused is a member of an unlawful assembly and the common object of the assembly is one of the five crimes specified in Section 141 of the IPC which reads as under : “Section 141: Unlawful Assembly-An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is— First.—To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second.—To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third.—To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or Fifth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation.—An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.” It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners that they had any common object to commit or having committed any one of the five crimes specified in Section 141 of the IPC nor there is any allegation that any of the petitioners knew the object of any unlawful assembly hence in the absence of that, neither the offence punishable under Section 143 nor the offence punishable under Section 147 of the IPC is made out. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no allegation against any of the petitioners, of criminal trespass having committed by any of them hence the offence under Section 447 of the criminal trespass. In the absence of any allegation against the petitioners of having caused hurt to the informant-complainant; the offence punishable under Sections 323 Indian penal code is made out. Similarly, in the absence of any allegation the petitioners of wrongfully confining anybody; the offence punishable under Sections 342, IPC is not made out against any of the petitioners. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 504 of IPC is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as has been mentioned in paragraph 29 of the judgment in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (supra) which reads as under : “Section 504 of the Penal Code 29. The allegations in the complaint do not also make out the ingredients of an offence under Section 504 of the Penal Code. Section 504 refers to intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. The allegation of the complainant is that when he enquired with Accused 1 and 2 about the sale deeds, they asserted that they will obtain possession of land under the sale deeds and he can do whatever he wants. The statement attributed to Appellants 1 and 2, it cannot be said to amount to an “insult with intent to provoke breach of peace”. The statement attributed to the accused, even if it was true, was merely a statement referring to the consequence of execution of the sale deeds by the first appellant in favour of the second appellant.” The allegation in the complaint do not make out the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC. The statement attributed to the accused, even if it was true, was merely a statement referring to the consequence of execution of the sale deeds by the first appellant in favour of the second appellant.” The allegation in the complaint do not make out the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC. 6. It is then submitted that the only allegation against the petitioners is that they threatened to assault the complainant-informant and this allegation, even if is accepted to be true in its entirety, is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of bonafide claim of Rahul Kumar Choubey and Rohit Kumar Choubey that they are owners of the land in question, which was sold by them and in the absence of any allegation that they impersonated for someone else, the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 424, 423 of IPC is also not made out against the petitioners, more so, because the land has already been settled in favor of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 by mutation after purchase of the same by the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and the corrections slip has been issued and has been filed in this criminal miscellaneous petition also. 7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that though the complainant-informant has filed Complaint Case No. 313 of 2013 and the same was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of CrPC and the police rightly after investigation of the case, did not send up the petitioners for trial and submitted the Final Form mentioning that the dispute between the parties relates to a land which is basically a civil dispute; but the learned Magistrate found prima facie material against the opp. party no. 8 namely Rahul Kumar Choubey only for the offence punishable under Sections 417 and 465 of IPC but learned Additional Sessions Judge, II Palamau at Daltonganj vide order dated 26.02.2018, has erroneously, quashed the order dated 07.08.2015, passed by learned JMFC, Palamau in Complaint Case No. 585 of 2014, and directed to pass fresh order. 8. party no. 8 namely Rahul Kumar Choubey only for the offence punishable under Sections 417 and 465 of IPC but learned Additional Sessions Judge, II Palamau at Daltonganj vide order dated 26.02.2018, has erroneously, quashed the order dated 07.08.2015, passed by learned JMFC, Palamau in Complaint Case No. 585 of 2014, and directed to pass fresh order. 8. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that even though no offence in law is made out against the petitioners still learned JMFC vide his order dated 29.06.2022, in Complaint Case No. 585 of 2014, which was a Protest Petition filed after submission of the Final Form by the police, has taken cognizance of the offences, as already indicated above but the same is not sustainable in law hence the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj passed in Criminal Revision No 97/2015 and order dated 29.06.2022 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palamau in connection with Complaint Case No. 585/2014 be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned Addl.P.P. and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the orders order dated 26.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Criminal Revision No 97/2015 and for quashing of order dated 29.06.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palamau in connection with Complaint Case No. 585/2014 and submit that the allegation against the petitioners are sufficient to constitute the offences-the cognizance of which has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no allegation against any of the petitioners of having made any false document or used any false document as genuine nor there is allegation against the petitioners of using any forged document for cheating hence , even if the allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 of IPC is not made out. So far as the offences under Sections 420 and 423 of IPC is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of cheating anybody or dishonestly inducing anybody to part with any property; which is a sine qua non for constituting the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian penal code. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is also not made out; even if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 423 of IPC is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of execution of any deed of transfer containing false statements rather the said allegation is against the co accused Rahul Kumar Choubey and Rohit Kumar Choubey hence, even if the allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 423 of IPC is not made out against the petitioners. 12. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 147 of IPC is concerned, in the absence of any allegation of common object against any of the accused of having committed any of the offences mentioned under Section 141 of IPC, this court has no hesitation in holding that the allegations made against the petitioners are insufficient to constitute offences punishable under Sections 143 and 147 of IPC. Therefore, the said to offences are not made out against the petitioners either. 13. In the absence of any allegation of any trespass against the petitioners, the offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC is not made out against the petitioners. In the absence of any allegation against the petitioners of having voluntarily causing any hurt to anybody and the only allegation being that they threatened to cause hurt, hence in the considered opinion of this Court, the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is not made out; even if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety. 14. In the absence of any allegation of any wrongful confinement of anybody against any of the petitioners, the offence punishable under Section 342 of IPC is not made out against him. 14. In the absence of any allegation of any wrongful confinement of anybody against any of the petitioners, the offence punishable under Section 342 of IPC is not made out against him. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is concerned, the statement attributed to the petitioners to the complainant-informant cannot be said to amount to an insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. Thus even if the statement attributed to the complainant-informant are treated to be true in its entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is not made out. 15. Under such circumstances, in view of the discussions made above and in the absence of any ingredients of the offences for which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners, this court is of the considered view that continuation of the order dated 29.06.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palamau in connection with Complaint Case No. 585/2014 will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order dated 29.06.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palamau in connection with Complaint Case No. 585/2014 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 16. Accordingly, the order dated 29.06.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palamau in connection with Complaint Case No. 585/2014 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 17. So far as the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj, passed in Criminal Revision No. 97/2015 is concerned, the same is an innocuous order so far as the same relates to this petition as the said order has not, in any way, adversely affected any of the petitioners. Under such circumstances this court do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the common order dated 26.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj, passed in Criminal Revision No 97/2015 and Criminal Revision no. 123 of 2015. 18. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.