1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3719 of 2022 ------ 1. Nanda Devi, wife of Shri Rajeev Ranjan Prasad. 2. Robin Kumar, son of Shri Rajeev Ranjan Prasad. Both residents of Ramnagar, Bishunpur, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Yogendra Kumar, son of Shri Mahendra Singh, resident of Ramnagar, Bishnupuri, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi (Pelawal), District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). … … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate. For the O.P. : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl. P.P. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate. ------- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ 08 /03.01.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Spl. P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners praying therein to quash the order dated 17.03.2020 in Katkamsandi (Pelawal) P.S. Case No.54 of 2014 (G.R. No.645/2014), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh, has taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and had issued process. 3. The law in respect of quashing of a criminal proceeding on the very initial stage has been settled. If any criminal offence is made out, at the very initial stage, the proceeding cannot be quashed. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 has held that when a civil transaction is given a cloak of criminal 2 offence, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radheyshyam & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311 has held that a civil wrong cannot be given a criminal colour merely to coerce the accused into registering the sale. It has been further held that the judicial process cannot be used as a tool to enforce specific performance of an agreement. 5. In this case, the complainant filed a complaint stating therein that the accused approached them as he was in need of some money. The accused also offered to sell their land to him. An Agreement to Sell was prepared and an advance was given. It is further mentioned that the accused persons later on did not sell the land to them, rather had sell the land to some other person. On this background, the complaint case has been lodged. 6. From entire perusal of the complaint case, I find that there is no criminal aspect involved in this case. It is absolutely a civil transaction. A civil matter has been given the colour of criminal proceeding and this case has been lodged. 7. Further, it is an admitted case by both the parties that during the proceeding, the matter was referred for mediation and admittedly the entire money which was taken by the accused was refunded to the complainant. 8. Be that as it may. Since, as no criminal offence is made out, I am inclined to allow this petition. The impugned order dated 17.03.2020 and entire criminal proceeding in connection with Katkamsandi (Pelawal) P.S. Case No.54 of 2014 (G.R. No.645/2014), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh, are quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Petition stands allowed. 10. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant.Cp-2