JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. 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 entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 27.04.2023 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate –XVI, Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/467/468/471/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to inter-alia the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 131 of 2023. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is a purchaser of a land belonging to the complainant in respect of which the complainant executed a power of attorney in favour of the co-accused –Lal Kishore Ram at the behest of the other two co-accused namely Arun Kumar Gope and Jitendra Kumar Singh. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammad Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 , para - 23 of which reads as under:- “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.” (Emphasis supplied) that, it is the petitioner who could have initiated criminal proceeding against the co-accused –Jitendra Kumar Singh but there is no way, the complainant who is a third party could have instituted case against the petitioner more so when no false document has been created by the petitioner as there is no allegation that the petitioner had any knowledge about the revocation of the power of attorney by the complainant executed by her in favour of the co-accused –Lal Kishore Ram. Hence, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 467/468 or for that matter offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 5. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna and Another Vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu and Another, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 203 , it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the allegations against the petitioners do not reveal any specific role ascribed to the petitioner in commission of the offence, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding be quashed against the petitioner. 6. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 , para -15 of which reads as under: “15. Xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx. Respondent 2's conduct in filing a delayed complaint case, suppressing material facts, and utilising fresh proceedings to materially improve on his earlier version, in totality, amounts to gross abuse of the process of court.” It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sale deed executed by co-accused –Jitendra Kumar Singh is of dated 16.04.2009 and the co-accused –Jitendra Kumar Singh gave the cheque in the year 2011; but the complaint having been filed after about 12 years, in the year 2023, amounts to gross abuse of process of court and on this score also, the entire criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 , para - 32 of which reads as under:- “32. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.” It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any allegation of any fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the petitioner, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 8. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Managing Director, Sonalika International Tractor Limited Vs. Dinesh Sharma and Others, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 435 and submits that as the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses shows that no allegation, as far as the petitioner is concerned, hence this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as prayer for be quashed and set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepak Gaba and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 423 , para -34 of which reads as under:- “34. We must also observe that the High Court, while dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, failed to take due notice that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be initiated when it is manifest that these proceedings have been initiated with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the opposite side due to private or personal grudge. [Birla Corpn. Ltd. [Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. Adventz Investments & Holdings Ltd., (2019) 16 SCC 610 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 828 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 713]; Mehmood Ul Rehman [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124]; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 ; and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.] Allegations in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence on record, when taken on the face value and accepted in entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. The inherent powers of the court can and should be exercised in such circumstances. The inherent powers of the court can and should be exercised in such circumstances. When the allegations in the complaint are so absurd or inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient wrong for proceeding against the accused, summons should not be issued.” And submits that in view of the facts of the case, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 27.04.2023 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate –XVI, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 406/420/467/468/471/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and inter-alia issued summons to the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 131 of 2023 be quashed and set aside. 10. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 27.04.2023 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate –XVI, Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/467/468/471/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and inter-alia issued summons to the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 131 of 2023. Drawing attention of this Court to Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the petitioner being the buyer of the immovable property is subject to liability as is applicable to the property. Hence, no title could accrue to the petitioner by the purchase of the land from the co-accused –Jitendra Kumar Singh who himself was not a competent person to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 11. Hence, no title could accrue to the petitioner by the purchase of the land from the co-accused –Jitendra Kumar Singh who himself was not a competent person to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients of the said offence are:- (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 as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (supra). 12. Now coming the facts of the case, there is no allegation of any deception of the complainant or for that matter anybody else by the petitioner since the very inception. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a property from the co-accused –Jitendra Kumar Singh of which Jitendra Kumar Singh was not entitled to sell. There is no allegation that the petitioner has any knowledge that Jitendra Kumar Singh had no entitlement to sell the property concerned in favour of the petitioner. So far as Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is concerned, the same cannot be pressed in service to give rise to any offence punishable under any penal provisions of Indian Penal Code. So far as Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is concerned, the same cannot be pressed in service to give rise to any offence punishable under any penal provisions of Indian Penal Code. So in the absence of specific allegation against the petitioner of any dishonest intention at the very inception and also the absence of other ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as mentioned in the judgment, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indin Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the following ingredients are to be established :- (i) Mens rea (ii) There must be dishonest misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use, or use in violation of a legal direction or of any legal contract (iii) The accused dishonestly used or disposed of the property. 14. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation of entrustment of any property to the petitioner by the complainant or anyone else nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property by the petitioner. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out in this case against the petitioner. 15. So far as the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are :- (i) The accused committed a forgery; (ii) He did so by preparation of forged document which purports to be a valuable security or the documents mentioned in Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of forging any document which purports to a valuable security or any other document, referred to in section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no allegation that the petitioner has any knowledge that the co-accused –Jitendra Kumar Singh was not competent to execute the sale deed which he has executed in favour of the petitioner way back in the year, 2009 when the complaint was filed only in the year 2023. There is no allegation that the petitioner has any knowledge that the co-accused –Jitendra Kumar Singh was not competent to execute the sale deed which he has executed in favour of the petitioner way back in the year, 2009 when the complaint was filed only in the year 2023. So in the absence of any role of the petitioner in creation of any false document, the offence of forgery is not made out against the petitioner and in the absence of any forgery being made out against the petitioner, the offences punishable under Section 468 or for that matter under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner even if the allegations made in the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses are treated to be true in their entirety. 17. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner gave any threat to anybody which consisted of any injury to person, reputation or property of the complainant or someone else in whom the complainant was interested and that the petitioner did so with intention to cause alarm to the complainant or to cause the complainant to do any act which she was not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat, the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code is not made out either. 18. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the belated criminal proceeding which was filed about 14 years after execution of the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner by the co-accused –Jitendra Kumar Singh will amount to abuse of process of court more so when there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing any offence. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 27.04.2023 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate –XVI, Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and inter-alia issued summons to the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 131 of 2023 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 19. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 27.04.2023 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate –XVI, Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/467/468/471/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and inter-alia issued summons to the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 131 of 2023 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 20. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.