JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R. of Barwadda P.S. Case No.33 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.808 of 2017 including the order taking cognizance vide order dated 16.03.2021 by which cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 387 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners which is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in criminal conspiracy with each other, went to the field of the informant and forcibly stopped the work of boring of well which was going on the land of the informant and demanded extortion of Rs.10,00,000/-. Out of fear, the men engaged by the informant stopped the work. There is further allegation that as per the documents provided by the petitioners to the informant, the vendor of the petitioners is Dilip Gope. The father of Dilip Gope namely Late Suresh Gope took permanent settlement of the land from king of Jharia namely Shiv Prasad Singh on 18.03.1939 but Suresh Gope was born on 05.02.1944. The holding No.125 created by late Suresh Gope and late Yamuna Pandey was found to be forged and based on manufactured documents. The said land has been grabbed and sold by Dilip Gope and Jai Niwas Pandey in illegal manner and the petitioners are demanding extortion and creating terror. 4. On the basis of the written report, police registered Barwadda P.S. Case No.33 of 2017 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet on 14.03.2018 and vide order dated 18.04.2018, a cognizance-cum-summoning order was passed by the learned Magistrate. The same was challenged before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.2414 of 2017 and vide order dated 14.12.2020, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court set aside the said order as nothing has been mentioned as to what are the materials to proceed against the petitioners in that order and directed the trial court to consider afresh and pass a speaking order summoning the accused. Accordingly, vide order dated 16.03.2021, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class considered the contents of the written report on the basis of which F.I.R. of the case has been registered and also considered that charge-sheet has been submitted inter alia against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 387, 468 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate also considered the different paragraphs of the case-diary wherein the statement under Section 161 of the witnesses of the case has been recorded by the Investigating Officer therein they have stated about the demand of extortion of Rs.10,00,000/- by the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with each other in paragraphs-7 to 10. The learned Magistrate further considered the contents of the case-diary wherein it has been mentioned that the documents provided by the informant pertaining to Registry Office could not be believed as most of the documents have been destroyed because of the fire accident that occurred in 1971 in the Registry Office and though the informant filed W.P.(C). No.4576 of 2014 requesting among other things for cancellation of Jamabandi document No.266 but the same was later on withdrawn by the informant. The learned Magistrate also considered that the petitioner No.1 of this Cr.M.P. instituted Barwadda P.S. Case No.184 of 2015 against the informant and others but in the said case Final Form was submitted stating the case to be a pure civil dispute. The learned Magistrate also considered that the allegation made by the informant against the accused persons of the case is that the accused persons are unlawfully capturing land and selling it to people without lawful authority on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. Hence, the learned Magistrate went on to hold that prima facie materials exist to try the petitioners along with Dilip Gope for having committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 387, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are brothers among themselves and petitioner No.1 is the wife of petitioner No.2. It is then submitted that the petitioner No.1 had purchased land situated at Mouza Badi Pichari measuring 56.14 decimal from Vina Srivastava, Ruchi Srivastava and Rashmi Sahay through their power of attorney holder namely Dilip Gope for valid consideration. It is then submitted that the petitioner No.1 had purchased land situated at Mouza Badi Pichari measuring 56.14 decimal from Vina Srivastava, Ruchi Srivastava and Rashmi Sahay through their power of attorney holder namely Dilip Gope for valid consideration. The petitioner No.1 had also purchased land situated at Barapichhri measuring 59.44 decimals from Santosh Paul, Dulal Paul and Arjun Paul. It is next submitted that cutting/tampering with the certified copy of the F.I.R. has been made by the informant with the view to use the same as if it is true and correct. It is next submitted that in the absence of any allegation of any false document having been created by the petitioners, no offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners and in the absence of any allegation of cheating and thereby making any person deliver any valuable property, no offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out either against the petitioners. It is next submitted that in the absence of any allegation that the petitioners have put or attempted to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person, the offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out and at best an offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code can be made out against the petitioners, but that too is also false. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 paragraphs-20 and 23 of which read as under:- “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. A clarification 23. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. A clarification 23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint.” 6. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners that the vendor of the petitioners have impersonated and if at all the vendor of the petitioners is not having a valid right, title and interest in respect of the land transferred by him to the petitioners then no title will accrue to the petitioner No.1 but certainly the same cannot constitute any of the offences for which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. Hence, it is submitted that at least the portion of the order taking cognizance in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and the offence punishable under Section 387 be modified to the one offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Learned P.P. appearing for the State fairly submits that there is no allegation against the petitioners of executing any sale-deed but the name of the father of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 has been used to create some forged documents but again it is fairly submitted by the learned P.P. that though the investigation of the case is over, no false document could be seized by the police. It is also fairly submitted by the learned P.P. that there is no allegation against the petitioners of having cheated anybody or having dishonestly induced anybody to part with any property. 8. It is also fairly submitted by the learned P.P. that there is no allegation against the petitioners of having cheated anybody or having dishonestly induced anybody to part with any property. 8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand submits that the petitioners are involved in several criminal cases but the opposite party No.2 does not have the details of the same. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that in the absence of any allegation of any false document having been created and the involvement of the petitioners in creation of such false documents certainly the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Similarly, in the absence of the allegation of cheating or dishonestly inducing any person by cheating in order to part with any property by way of cheating, no offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and in the absence of any allegation of putting any person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, the offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out qua the petitioners but at best the offence punishable under Section 385 read with 120 B of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the order dated 16.03.2021 passed in Barwadda P.S. Case No.33 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.808 of 2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad is modified by quashing the cognizance for the offence punishable under 420, 468 of the Indian Penal Code qua the petitioners of this case and modifying the offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code qua the petitioners only. 11. It is made clear that the cognizance of the offence mentioned in that order so far as relates to the petitioners of this case be treated only for the offence punishable under Section 385/120 B of the Indian Penal Code. 12. 11. It is made clear that the cognizance of the offence mentioned in that order so far as relates to the petitioners of this case be treated only for the offence punishable under Section 385/120 B of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Since this Court has held that part of the cognizance order is legal, hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding is to be quashed. Hence, the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding is rejected. 13. In view of the discussions made above, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed in part to the extent as already indicated above. 14. In view of the disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, interim order, if any, stands vacated.