JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Fahad Allam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State. 2. Inspite of service of notice, the O.P.no.2 has chosen not to appear. By order dated 18.8.2022 this matter was adjourned with the observation that if the O.P.No.2 will not appear on the next date, the appropriate order shall be passed on the basis of the materials available on record and that is why, this petition is heard on merit. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 15.12.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamshedpur, in C/1 Case No.2358 of 2010 whereby cognizance under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Jamshedpur. 4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that complainant along with his brothers Krishna Chandra Das, Hare Govind Das, Lakhi Kant Das, Niranjan Das (since deceased) and the accused Subodh Chandra Das are joint owners of plot no.340, 341, 342, 345 and 346 under khata no.30 measuring 1.64 acres at Mauza Birdha, P.S. Jadugoda. It is further alleged that Subodh Chandra Das got a forged general power of attorney registered on 25.3.2008 wherein he has taken upon himself the power to sell the land of the complainant as well as other owners. The accused Subodh Chandra Das got forged signature of the complainant and other owners and affixed photographs of false persons on the said power of attorney. It is further alleged that the accused petitioner, who is the authorized representative of M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. in conspiracy with another accused, Subodh Chandra Das, and having knowledge that the aforesaid power of attorney is a forged one purchased the aforesaid lands by registered deed dated 12.4.2008 in the name of M/s Jindal Steel and Power Limited. 5. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was legally constituted authority of Jindal Steel and Power Limited and in that capacity had executed the sale deed on behalf the purchaser Jindal Steel and Power Limited on payment of consideration amount of Rs.5,65,300/-. 5. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was legally constituted authority of Jindal Steel and Power Limited and in that capacity had executed the sale deed on behalf the purchaser Jindal Steel and Power Limited on payment of consideration amount of Rs.5,65,300/-. The vendor Subodh Chandra Das was the constituted attorney amongst his other four brothers, who executed the sale deed on his and on behalf of his brothers which is clearly mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 12.4.2008 which is an admitted fact. He further submits that earlier for the set of allegation another police case being Bistupur P.S.Case No.387 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3321 of 2009 was registered on 25.12.2009 in which the police has submitted final form whereby the petitioner was not sent up for trial however the charge sheet has been submitted against Subodh Chandra Das and he further submits that Subodh Chandra Das has faced the trial in that case and he has also been acquitted in the police case. He further submits that thereafter the present complaint case has been filed and it is submitted that he is only authorized for executing the sale deed on behalf of the company and the company is not made the accused. He submits that the learned court without appreciating all these facts has taken the cognizance. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that these are the defence which can be looked into by the learned court at the stage of trial and the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance. 7. In view of the above facts and the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly earlier the case was registered with the police which was investigated and this petitioner was not sent up for trial however the power of attorney holder was sent for trial who has faced the trial and the learned court has been pleased to acquit him and thereafter the present case has been filed. The petitioner has signed the deed on behalf of Jindal Steel and Power Limited and the Jindal Steel and Power Limited who is the purchaser. The petitioner has signed the deed on behalf of Jindal Steel and Power Limited and the Jindal Steel and Power Limited who is the purchaser. How the case under section 417 IPC is made out is not clear. In this background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the case of the purchaser in the case of “Mohammad Ibrahim v. State of Bihar”, (2009) 8 SCC 751 . Paragraph no.8 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: “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. v. NEPC India Ltd. [ (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] ) Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind.” 8. In view of the facts, reasons and analysis considering that earlier the police has investigated the matter and thereafter the complaint case is filed that too for a civil wrong if any and to allow the proceeding to continue further will amount to abuse of process of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal”, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 9. In view of the above the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No.2358 of 2010, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Jamshedpur is quashed. 10. Cr.M.P. No.1780 of 2012 is allowed and disposed of. 11. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.