JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. I.A. No.9478 of 2024 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Since, the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous. Cr.M.P. No.3359 of 2025 This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.2703 of 2014 including the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 403, 406, 417, 421, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and passed summoning order. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant and the accused Nos.1 to 5 of the complaint case are co-sharers of a joint Hindu Family. The co-accused persons made repeated attempts to alienate the joint property by deceptive means and fraudulent acts of commission and omissions. There is specific allegation against the co- accused Devendra Kumar Agarwalla, who is not a petitioner in this Cr.M.P. and the deceased family member namely Parmeshwar Agarwalla of preparing an affidavit by a fake person for selling the property in the name and style of Jharia House situated at Kolkata. It is the admitted case of the complainant that the said Devendra Kumar Agarwalla and Parmeshwar Agarwalla were the persons responsible for selling of the joint property fraudulently behind the back of the complainant. The only allegation against the petitioner No.1 is that the co-accused namely Devendra Kumar Agarwalla sold the joint property to the petitioner No.1 and misappropriated the proceeds thereof. Though the accused No.2 in connivance with the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4; none of whom are petitioners in this Cr.M.P., have failed to comply with the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, in respect of Jharia House Property, belonging to H.D. Agarwala Trust; which ought to have been transferred to the complainant and they have given a false declaration under oath to defraud the court and the complainant. The complainant, consequent upon the failure of the accused Nos.1 to 5 of the complaint; none of whom are petitioners in this Cr.M.P., to partition the joint property, has filed Title (Partition) Suit No.151 of 2013 in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Dhanbad. There is further allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners have purchased the joint family property in the name and style of M/s Anup Malleables Limited. There is also allegation that the accused Nos.3 and 4 caught hold of the complainant when he intended to enter inside the said premises after the same being sold and the accused No.2 of the complaint, slapped the complainant and the accused Nos.5 and 6 were present there by holding iron rods. There is specific allegation that the accused Nos.1 to 5 of the complaint, from the very beginning had the intention to transfer and alienate the said company along with other valuable assets. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, basing upon the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses found prima facie case against the petitioners; including all the accused persons of the case for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 403, 406, 417, 421, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the law in paragraphs-20 and 21; that when a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration but a third party to the transaction cannot allege that he has been cheated by the purchasers of the property. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have purchased the property for Rs.78,00,00,000/-, so the petitioners could have alleged that the vendors being the co-accused persons, have cheated him but the complainant being not a party to the sale transaction between the petitioners and the co-accused persons, certainly cannot claim that he has been cheated by the petitioners nor can he say that the petitioners have committed criminal breach of trust as there is no allegation of entrustment of any property by the complainant or anyone else to the petitioners nor is there any allegation that there is any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property; by the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 and submits that therein in paragraph-12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that when a dispute is essentially of a civil nature and is given a cloak of criminal offence and if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioners are not the co-sharers of the complainant. The main grievance of the complainant is that he has not been given his share from the joint family property by the co-accused persons who are the co-sharers of the complainant. So, it is essentially a civil dispute. It is next submitted that as before filing of this complaint in the year 2014, the complainant already adopted the civil remedy by filing Title (Partition) Suit No.151 of 2013 in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Dhanbad, so, in view of the ratio of the judgment of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others (supra), this is a fit case where the criminal case has been instituted by giving a cloak of criminal offence to a purely civil dispute that too not with the petitioners but with the co-accused persons, who have sold the joint family property to the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the allegation against the petitioners is false. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the allegation against the petitioners is false. There is no allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt to anyone nor is there any allegation against the petitioners of causing any forgery rather the same is against the co-accused persons. There is no allegation against the petitioners of dishonestly or fraudulently; removing or concealing or delivering any property to any person or transferring any property, without adequate consideration. There is no allegation against the petitioners of dishonestly or fraudulently signing, executing or becoming a party to any deed or instrument nor is there any allegation of wrongfully restraining anyone or entering into any criminal conspiracy. Hence, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still as none of the offence in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has found prima facie case, is in fact made out against the petitioners and the petitioners have been arrayed in this criminal case only for the purpose of wrecking vengeance and as an intermediatory tactics. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the co-accused sellers also approached this Court for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding but a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.138 of 2015 and allied cases, vide judgment dated 25.08.2015 dismissed their prayer and though one of the co-accused persons namely Uddhav Agarwalla filed Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.9781 of 2015 but the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 18.03.2016 dismissed the said Special Leave Petition. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that since the co-accused persons are facing the trial and there is allegation of criminal conspiracy against the petitioners, so, the petitioners are squarely liable to face the trial. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that since the co-accused persons are facing the trial and there is allegation of criminal conspiracy against the petitioners, so, the petitioners are squarely liable to face the trial. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have purchased the joint family property from the co-accused persons of the case and the complainant also claims a share of the property sold by the co-accused persons to the petitioners. In view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that if at all the accused persons were not having the ownership of the property sold by them to the petitioners, it is the petitioners who could have sued the co- accused persons for having cheated the petitioners but here in this case; the complainant being a third party as he was not a party to the sale transaction between the co-accused persons and the petitioners, is claiming that he has been cheated by the petitioners even though the complainant do not claim that he has either been deceived by the petitioners or has been induced by the petitioners to part with any property nor is there any allegation against the petitioners of being entrusted with any property; which they have misappropriated, which are the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. The allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code is specifically against the co- accused persons as has been stated categorically in the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation. 11. The allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code is specifically against the co- accused persons as has been stated categorically in the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation. There is no allegation against the petitioners of the committing any forgery rather the same is specifically against the co-accused namely Devendra Kumar Agarwalla and a deceased member of the joint family property namely Parmeshwar Agarwalla who are not the petitioners in this Cr.M.P. There is no allegation against the petitioners of dishonestly or fraudulently removing, concealing any property and in the absence of the same, the offences punishable under Sections 421 or 424 of the Indian Penal Code is not made against the petitioners. 12. There is no allegation against the petitioners of dishonestly or fraudulently signing, executing or becoming a party to any deed or instrument which purports to transfer or subject to any charge any property or any interest therein and which contains any false statement relating to the consideration of such transfer or charge. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 423 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 13. From the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, this Court is of the considered view that there is no direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of being in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons having committed any offence. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is a purely civil dispute between the parties being the petitioners and the co-accused persons and the complainant has already adopted the civil remedy available in the civil court by filing Title (Partition) Suit No.151 of 2013 in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Dhanbad prior to filing of Complaint Case No.2703 of 2014 and this is a case where a cloak of criminal case is being given to a purely civil dispute for the purpose of wrecking vengeance against the petitioners for having purchased a property which was not to the liking of the complainant. 14. 14. Under such facts and circumstances of the case, as none of the offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has found prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, 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 in connection with Complaint Case No.2703 of 2014 including the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above. 15. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.2703 of 2014 including the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above. 16. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. 17. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of being infructuous. 18. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide order dated 01.09.2015, is vacated. 19. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.