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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 17.08.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Koderma whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 245 of 2017. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.2 after selling his property of 06 decimals out of the 24 decimals of land in the plot concerned; has sold another 06 decimals of land to the petitioner no.1 though the petitioner no.2 was entitled only for 06 decimals of land out of 24 decimals of the total area of the plot as per his share. The allegation against the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 is that they are the witnesses to the said sale deed executed by the petitioner no.2 in favour of the petitioner no.1. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that first the complainant filed Complaint Case No. 583 of 2014 and the same was referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. basing upon which Jainagar P.S. Case No. 152 of 2015 has been registered. Police submitted Final Form. Being dissatisfied with the same, the complainant filed protest petition which has been registered as Complaint Case No. 245 of 2017. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of any allegation against the petitioners of inducing the complainant or anyone else to part with any property, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out nor for that matter, the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that after selling the property to the complainant, the petitioner no.2 has again sold the same to the petitioner no.1 in criminal conspiracy with the other petitioners. The Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that after selling the property to the complainant, the petitioner no.2 has again sold the same to the petitioner no.1 in criminal conspiracy with the other petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully 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 to constitute 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., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 . 7. Now coming the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of inducing the complainant to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof or to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he was not deceived. 8. Under such circumstances this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 9. 8. Under such circumstances this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients of the said offence is :- 1. An agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence 2. In doing so, the accused either did or caused to be done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not in itself illegal, by illegal means 3. Such an act done or caused to be done was an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. 4. If the act so done was not an offence then an overt act had been done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State vs. Nalini and Others , reported in (1999) 5 SCC 253 . 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no agreement between the parties to commit any offence. Under such, circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 11. In view of the discussions made above, since neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is made out, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 17.08.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Koderma whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 245 of 2017 be quashed and set aside. 12. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 17.08.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Koderma whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 245 of 2017 be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 17.08.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Koderma whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 245 of 2017 is quashed and set aside. 13. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 14. The interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 16.01.2020 is vacated.