JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. I.A. No. 4137 of 2025 1 . Heard the parties. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to amend the criminal miscellaneous petition by incorporating the additional prayer for quashing the order framing charge dated 13.12.2024. It is next submitted that the amendment is necessitated because of the developments which took place after filing of this criminal miscellaneous petition and unless the proposed amendment is allowed, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. 3. Considering the facts of this case, the amendment as proposed in para -2 of this interlocutory application is allowed. 4. The petitioners are directed to file the consolidated criminal miscellaneous petition incorporating the additional prayer which is allowed by this order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner files the consolidated criminal miscellaneous petition which is allowed by this order. Keep the same in the record. 6. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. Cr.M.P. No. 2951 of 2023 1. 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 including the order taking cognizance dated 12.05.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class – XXVI, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 6282 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 323 , 341, 384, 406, 420, 504, 506 & 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 3. The allegations made in this case is that the co-accused Jamil Ansari has sold the land of the complainant to the petitioners which the co-accused- Jamil Ansari was not owning. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rafique & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., in Cr.M.P. No. 231 of 2021, dated 24.01.2024 that therein this Court relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indian 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. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., in Cr.M.P. No. 231 of 2021, dated 24.01.2024 that therein this Court relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indian 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. v. NEPC India Ltd. [ (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] ) Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind.” (Emphasis supplied) As also para -11 of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148 , paragraph nos. 11 of which reads as under :- “11. Having observed the background principles applicable herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406 IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. It falls from the record that Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant circumstances before lending the loan. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment.(Emphasis supplied) Wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC. 5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has not come to the trial court with clean hands; as he has not mentioned the boundary of the land in dispute. It is next submitted that at best, the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and Ayesha Khatoon was the only legal heir of the Sheikh Wazir and the claim of the complainant that the power of attorney was cancelled is a concocted one. It is next submitted that the petitioners could have filed a case against the co-accused Jamil Ansari for the alleged cheating but the complainant cannot file such complaint; as there is no claim of the complainant of parting with any money or property, nor any of the accused persons alleged to be having dominion over the property of the complainant or entrusted any property by the complainant. It is next submitted that the allegation of assault and demand of extortion is general and omnibus in nature and has been made ornamentally, only to make the case serious one; as no time of occurrence of the same has been mentioned anywhere in the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation or the statement of the inquiry witnesses. Hence, it is submitted that the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. The learned Addl. Hence, it is submitted that the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that this is a clearcut case of cheating and forgery. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 12.05.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class –XXVI, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 6282 of 2022 ought not to be allowed at this nascent stage and this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that 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 - 17, 19 & 23 of which reads as under:- “17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted. 19. To constitute an offence under Section 420 , there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security). A clarification 23. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) has laid down that when a document is executed by a person, claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor he is claiming that he is authorized by someone else, the execution of such document is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE except in respect of the purchaser of such property and in the absence of false document, the offence of forgery is not constituted to be complained by anyone else, than the purchaser of such property. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, the main allegation of forgery is against co-accused Jamil Ansari. 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), in para -23, so far as the sale deed executed by the Jamil Anari in favour of the petitioner is concerned, the complainant is a third party. Certainly, he could not have filed a complaint as the complainant has no way been cheated without any money or property being parted by him on being deceived and the accused persons being neither in dominion over his property nor the complainant entrusted any property to them. 9. So far as the allegation of extortion and causing hurt is concerned, the same are vague allegations without mentioning any specific time of occurrence. 9. So far as the allegation of extortion and causing hurt is concerned, the same are vague allegations without mentioning any specific time of occurrence. Even in the order of framing of charge in respect of the offences punishable under Section 323 /34, 341/34, 384/34, the time and place has been mentioned from 26.10.2016 till 02.03.2023 which is highly improbable that a person will go on causing simple hurt to another person for a period of seven years or continuously or wrongfully restrain a person for seven years or similarly will demand extortion for seven years and this only goes to show that the allegations are vague and has been made for the ornamental purpose to make the case a serious one. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 12.05.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class –XXVI, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 6282 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 323 , 341, 384, 406, 420, 504, 506 & 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 12.05.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class –XXVI, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 6282 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 323 , 341, 384, 406, 420, 504, 506 & 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 12. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.