JUDGMENT : The petitioner in this Criminal Writ Petition has prayed for following reliefs:- “For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of the F.I.R. and entire criminal proceeding arising out of Lower Bazar P.S. No. 377/2023 registered on 6th of December, 2023 which was registered against the Petitioner for allegedly committing an offence under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 427, 467, 468, 471 and 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code, which is now pending in the Learned Court of JM, Ranchi.” 2. That the fact of the case is that the informant entered into a development agreement with M/s Aahaa Planers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. for construction and development of multi-storied building over Plot No. 633 & 634. However, the accused inspite of including Plot No. 631, 632, 635 and 636 wrongly included Plot No. 639, which is CNT-reserved non-transferable land in the project map without permission. They also gave false information about Plot No. 639 to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. According to the agreement, the builder was supposed to pay the informant Rs.35,000/- per month with 5% annual increase as rent but has not paid anything since May 2021 and when he protested, he was threatened and assaulted. The petitioner is Managing Director of the company. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and no direct accusation has been made against him in the First Information Report. The First Information Report claims that construction has been made over Plot No. 639 also which is non-transferable land. In case of “Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rane reported in (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 159”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that without clear accusations and without including the company as a party, the company officer or Managing Director cannot be held responsible. He submits that the accusations are false and do not attract criminal offence. He further submits that section 406 of the Indian Penal Code applies only when there is a clear 'criminal breach of trust', which is not the case here. Further, in the case of “State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if no offence is made out, the FIR should be quashed. 4. Further, in the case of “State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if no offence is made out, the FIR should be quashed. 4. Learned counsel representing the state submits that the FIR discloses serious allegations against the petitioner and other co-accused. The allegation is of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery. He further submits that specific allegations has been made that CNT-reserved land (Plot No. 639) was illegally included in the project plan and wrong information was submitted to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, thereby misleading a statutory authority. Further there is allegation of threatening and assault also. 5. After hearing the parties and considering the material on record, I find that the allegation as per the First Information Report arising out of complaint petition is that the Builder has constructed part of the building over Plot No.639 also by encroachment and without sanction of the plan. Petitioner is the land owner of Plot No.635 and not of plot No.639, which is the disputed plot. The encroachment over a plot cannot be said to attract any criminal offence. 6. The First Information Report has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 427, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code lays down punishment for criminal breach of trust. Criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. It is necessary to quote Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under: - “Section 405 Criminal breach of trust - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.” From the allegations made in the First Information Report, I find that nothing has been entrusted to anyone. This is a case of encroachment, i.e., encroaching upon the plot and including the same in the project, which does not belong to the land owner and rather is a non-transferable land. 8. Another Section in the First Information Report is Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is the punishment for cheating. Cheating is defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 415 is quoted hereinbelow: - 415. Cheating – Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. 9. The requirement of Section 415 IPC has been set forth in paragraph 41 of the judgment rendered in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another versus State of Uttaranchal & Others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Paragraph 41 reads as under: - 41. Section 415 IPC thus requires – 1. Deception of any person 2. (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person- (i) to deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment, in paragraph 42, has analysed as to what are the separate classes of the acts, which would attract the aforesaid provision of the law. It is necessary to quote paragraph 42 of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra):- 42. On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is manifest that in the definition there are two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. It is necessary to quote paragraph 42 of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra):- 42. On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is manifest that in the definition there are two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first class of acts he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property to any person. The second class of acts is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but need not be fraudulent or dishonest. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to subsequently keep a promise, one cannot presume that he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise from the beginning. 11. From the allegations made in the First Information Report, there is nothing to show that this petitioner has cheated anyone or the informant. 12. Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for forgery of valuable security, will, etc., which reads as under: - 467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc – Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 13. Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for forgery for purpose of cheating, which reads as under: - 468. 13. Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for forgery for purpose of cheating, which reads as under: - 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating. – Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 14. Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for using as genuine a forged document or electronic record, which reads as under:- 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record. – Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record. 15. What are the ingredients which are essential for commission of an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, has been highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra). As per paragraph 44 of the said judgment, the following are the ingredients:- a) the document in question so forged; b) accused, who forged it; c) document is one of the kinds enumerated in Section 467; 16. Essentials of Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code is that:- a) there should be a forged document or electronic record; b) an intention to use the said forged document for the purpose of cheating; 17. Essentials of Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is that a) document should be forged; b) the person using the forged document, must use the said document, fraudulently or dishonestly, using the forged document as genuine; c) person doing so, must know or has reasons to believe that the document is forged; 18. From analysing these three Sections of the Indian Penal Code, I find that the pivotal point is ‘forgery’ of a document or an electronic record. This means to attract these sections, there has to be a forged document or an electronic record. Forgery is defined in Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. For better appreciation, provision of the said Section is quoted hereinbelow:- 463. This means to attract these sections, there has to be a forged document or an electronic record. Forgery is defined in Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. For better appreciation, provision of the said Section is quoted hereinbelow:- 463. Forgery – Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. 19. From bare perusal of the same, I find that there are some essentials / ingredients of ‘forgery’ as defined in Section 463. These essentials are a) making of a false document or false electronic record, in full or in part; b) the said making should be with an intention to cause damage or injury to public or to any person; Or c) to support any claim or title; Or d) to enter into any express or implied contract; Or e) with intention to commit fraud or fraud may be committed. 20. From analysis of the aforesaid provision, I find that there has to be making of a false document or false electronic record with an intention to cause damage to public or to any person or for the other purposes specified in the aforesaid Section, as mentioned above. 21. So, for the purpose of forgery as mentioned in Section 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with the definition, i.e., Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, there has to be an existence / making of a false document. What is making of a false document is enumerated in Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. For better appreciation, it is necessary to quote Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:- 464. Making a false document – A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record – First. What is making of a false document is enumerated in Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. For better appreciation, it is necessary to quote Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:- 464. Making a false document – A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record – First. – Who dishonestly or fraudulently – (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly. – Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly. – Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration. 22. Even if the entire allegation in the First Information Report are gone through, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had made an application before the concerned authority for sanction of the building plan. From the said allegation it cannot be said that the application is forged so as to attract offences under Sections 467, 468 or 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 24. So far as Sections 323 and 524 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the same superfluous without there being any ingredients to attract the offences. 25. From the said allegation it cannot be said that the application is forged so as to attract offences under Sections 467, 468 or 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 24. So far as Sections 323 and 524 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the same superfluous without there being any ingredients to attract the offences. 25. Section 427 provides that whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Section 425 defines mischief. Section 425 reads as under:- 425 : Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits “mischief”. 26. From the allegations in the First Information Report, none of the ingredients so as to make out the offence of “mischief” have been brought in by the informant inasmuch, the land which has been alleged to have been included by the petitioner while constructing the building, does not belong to the informant. 27. Further, another question arose as to whether a First Information Report can be quashed qua a particular accused, if there is no material against the accused and no criminal offence is made out against him. 28. Learned counsel for the informant contended that against one accused the First Information Report cannot be quashed and if the First Information Report is to be quashed, it has to be quashed as a whole and there cannot be piece-meal quashing. 29. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Salhotra versus State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2018) 12 SCC 391 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 636 at paragraph 3 thereof has held as under: - 3. We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against the appellants herein. We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against the appellants herein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent 2 herein only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against Co-accused 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie. According to us, the FIR in question filed against the appellants herein by Respondent 2 is only an afterthought with the sole intention to pressurize the appellants not to prosecute their criminal complaint filed by them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 30. Thus, in the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the First Information Report qua few of the accused. Issue raised by the counsel for the informant is, thus, settled. It is now settled that First Information Report qua some of the accused can be quashed. 31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Laland others reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335”held thata criminal proceeding can only be quashed in exceptional cases.It is necessary to quote paragraph 102 of the said judgment- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 32. From the principles laid down in “State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Laland others reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335”, I find that the same is applicable to the present case as prima facie the First Information Report does not disclose any material justifying the petitioner’s prosecution. 33. Following the guidelines in the aforesaid judgments and relating the same with the facts of this case, I find that the petitioner has encroached a particular plot in the project, which is not transferable. 33. Following the guidelines in the aforesaid judgments and relating the same with the facts of this case, I find that the petitioner has encroached a particular plot in the project, which is not transferable. This means that he has encroached a particular plot while constructing the building. This allegation cannot be said to attract any criminality and there is statutory remedy for correction of the same. 34. Further from the fact of this case I am of the opinion that absolutely a civil dispute has been given colour of criminal offence. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Radhey Shyam and Others versus State of Rajasthan and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311 has held that a civil wrong cannot be given a criminal colour and when there are ample remedies available under civil laws, criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to continue. 35. In view of what has been held and observed above, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. The criminal proceedings arising out of Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 377 of 2023 qua the petitioner are hereby quashed. 36. This Criminal Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.