Patna High Court · 2010
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.6809 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Rameshwar Prasad Sinha S/O Late Chandeshwar Prasad Sinha Resident Of Tanda Par, P.S.- Ghoshi, District- Jehanabad At Present Residing At Rajbanshi Nagar Extension Road No.-1, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Patna At Present Residing At Noida, Distt.- Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ramesh Kumar S/O Rashpriya Singh R/O Kanchanpur, P.S.- Fatuha, District- Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.28862 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Narain Kumar /O Late Sukan Mahto R/O Narain Niwas, Raj Banshi Nagar, Extension Road No-1, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Patna 2. Raj Kumar S/O Narain Kumar R/O Narain Niwas, Raj Banshi Nagar, Extension Road No-1, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Patna At Present Residing At Noida, Distt.- Gautam Buddha Nagar U.P. 3. Manoj Kumar S/O Narain Kumar R/O Narain Niwas, Raj Banshi Nagar, Extension Road No-1, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Patna At Present Residing At Noida, Distt.- Gautam Buddha Nagar U.P. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ramesh Kumar S/O Rashpriya Singh R/O Kanchanpur, P.S.- Fathua, Distt.- Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar & Santosh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Rikesh Sinha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY CAV 10 10-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and O.P.No.2. 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 2 / 26 Since both the petitions arise out of same order, with the consent of parties, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 17th September 2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Patna arising out of Complaint Case No. 1679© of 2010 whereby and whereunder the court has taken cognizance for the offences u/s 420/406/323/379 and 504 IPC. The O.P.No.2 claims to have been engaged in the business of purchase and sale of the land by entering into agreement by the land owner and sell the same to the prospective purchasers. Narayan Kumar, having close relation with the complainant, approached him along with Rameshwar Singh, petitioner in January 2009 and expressed his desire to sell a piece of land appertaining to Plot No. 409(Part), Khata No. 50 comprising an area of 9 decimals situated at Dak Bunglow Road, Fatuah. He expressed urgent need for money for his sons’ business and asked the complainant either to purchase the land himself or to arrange a buyer for the same. On negotiation, the rate of the land was finalized for Rs.21,60,000/- for entire 9 decimals of land. The said land was standing in the name of Raj Kumar, accused No.2 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 3 / 26 and Manoj Kumar, accused No.3, sons of accused no.1. Accused Raj Kumar and Manoj Kumar were pressing hard for early arrangement of money as they required in their own business of consultancy in New Delhi. They had assured on payment of consideration of money of Rs.21,60,000/- within a period of eleven months from the date of execution of the agreement, Narayan Kumar would get the sale-deed executed either in favour of complainant or in the name of nominees. Relying on the statement offered to the complainant, Narayan Kumar executed the agreement for sale at his residence at Patna and assured that the said agreement was executed with the prior consent of his sons, who would later on execute the sale-deed on full payment. At the time of agreement, the complainant paid Rs. 2,00,000/- which was duly acknowledged by Narayan Kumar, accused No.1. Recitals of the same has been made in the agreement. Allegation in the complaint petition has been made that he has paid Rs.18,50,000/- arranging money from different sources in instalments which was duly acknowledged on various dates by Narayan Kumar, accused No.1 under his signature. After getting the aforesaid amount, accused persons started giving an impression about the price rise of the land of Rs.50,00,000/- and, therefore, the complainant would have to agree to pay the said 4
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 4 / 26 amount otherwise there cannot be any registration of the land. Considering the demand of the accused persons, the complainant negotiated the price of the land. Ultimately, they agreed for Rs.45,00,000/- and sought time for arranging the said amount and on payment of the same, they would register the land. As per the agreement, the complainant arranged the money and paid remaining amount of Rs.13,86,000/- to Raj Kumar, accused No.2 through Bank Draft whereas an amount of Rs.12,35,000/- was paid to Manoj Kumar, accused No.3 through Bank Draft. In this way, the complainant paid Rs.45,00,000/- to the accused persons by 15th March 2010 and afterwards requested the accused persons to fix the date of registration of the sale-deed but they started evading the complainant, even several reminders did not give any fruitful result. On 13th June 2010 the complainant along with witnesses approached Narayan Kumar and Rameshwar Prasad Singh at Punaichak at Patna. Request for refund of the said amount was made upon which both the accused lost their tamper and on the order of Narayan Kumar, accused Rameshwar Prasad Singh caught hold of the complainant and started assaulting him with fists and slaps and snatched Rs.5,000/- from the pocket of the complainant. It has been alleged that Narayan Kumar, accused No.1 snatched a gold chain valued at Rs.40,000/- from the neck of 5 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 5 / 26 the complainant but due to timely intervention of the witnesses, he could save himself from further assault. It has been alleged that both the accused persons threatened the complainant on future demand of money otherwise the complainant would face the dire consequence. It has been alleged in the complaint petition from the very inception, the accused persons were dishonest and fraudulent, never intended to register the land. On the basis of the solemn affirmation of the complainant and other witnesses, the court took cognizance under the aforesaid Sections of the Indian Penal Code vide the impugned order.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is an admitted fact that the complainant is a broker who approached the accused persons showing his desire to negotiate and to sell the property to the prospective buyers. He has further submitted that after execution of the deed of agreement, he has adopted his own course and developed dishonest intention, ultimately, the prospective buyers themselves directly approached the petitioners for direct deal and they themselves paid the amount, in return, the petitioners executed the sale-deed in their favour. Even all facts admitted in the complaint petition be treated to be true, no case under criminal offence is made out, rather the averments made in 6 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 6 / 26 the complaint petition show it was only agreement for such in between the complainant and petitioners violation will lead only civil consequences, no criminal offence is made out. The filing of criminal case is not a proper remedy in stead of the same he should have approached the civil court for its Redressal. This Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions have held that in a case of breach of agreement or in a case of specific performance of contract, it would be in the ends of justice for the parties to approach the civil court, rather to the criminal court. It has further been submitted that it has become the affair of the day that the persons who do have some civil dispute, in stead of approaching the right court, they opt for the criminal case in order to exert pressure somehow or the other to settle the dispute at the threat of criminal case. In support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on : 2002(1) PLJR 247 (SC) (S.W.Palanitkar v. State of Bihar). AIR 2011 SC 20(Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Incorporated) AIR 2012 SC 1007 (Lee Kun Hee v. State of U.P.) Whereas counsel for the opposite party has submitted if facts 7 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 7 / 26 mentioned in the complaint petition do constitute a criminal offence as well as a civil wrong, there is no bar for both the proceedings to run parallel. Only the rider provides that the statement in the complaint petition and the materials collected during the enquiry should constitute the criminal offence. In the present case, the allegation has been made of payment of Rs.45,00,000/- by the complainant in pursuance of assurance given by them to sell the property to the complainant or to his nominee but after taking the huge amount accused refused to buzz any further. Hence, the averments in the complaint petition as also the materials collected during the enquiry would constitute the offence under the aforesaid Sections of the Indian Penal Code and this Court should not interfere at the stage of taking cognizance as the court is required to see as to whether from the facts mentioned in the complaint petition do constitute any offence against them or not. In this case, counsel for the petitioners urged before this Court for quashing the criminal proceeding at initial stage as the allegation made in the complaint petition even if all the facts are considered to be true, do not constitute any offence, as the allegation alleged against the petitioners are basically in civil nature having commercial dispute between the parties, which 8 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 8 / 26 cannot be adjudicated in the criminal proceeding. It will be in the interest of justice. The complainant should approach the civil court as the proper remedy lies there. The issue of interference at the initial stage exercising inherent power in the matter of having a civil nature of dispute came for consideration in large number of cases and it will be appropriate to rely on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2006)6 SCC 736 (Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the parameter, dealing with criminal cases arising from civil disputes, the guidelines are hereunder: “(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing 9 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 9 / 26 of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal 10 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 10 / 26 offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that when the matter is basically a dispute of civil nature and has been given colour of criminal offence, the criminal proceedings are not short-cut method not available in law, rather civil proceeding would be proper for Redressal of grievance. In the case of Iridium India Telecom (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering criteria within which, the High Court would exercise the inherent jurisdiction considered the scope and limits of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code and observed the scope of quashing is extremely limited only to 11 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 11 / 26 ascertain truth or falsehood of allegation made in complaint which is as follows: (i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court; (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the case may have. The Hon’ble Supreme Court decided parameter, scope and circumstances for exercise of inherent jurisdiction in the following term:- Para-29: Mr Desai submitted that the Iridium system was and is a technological success. It is being used in global aerospace programmes and defence departments of different countries. One of its major customers is the Indian Defence Forces. Merely because the satellite mobile system is not a commercial success is not sufficient to establish that the respondent Company had any dishonest intention. Mobile phones seem to have overtaken 12 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 12 / 26 the entire market. Even the satellite phones are used when the mobile phone service is not available. That is particularly so in remote and inaccessible terrain. Mr Desai then submitted that while seeking investments from strategic investors, the 1992 PPM contained all the necessary information. The statements in the PPM related to future projections. They were based on certain assumptions. Merely because the expectations of the appellant were not realised, it would not be sufficient to establish dishonest intention of the respondents. The representations were made to strategic investors. These were individuals, firms and entities, who were experts in their field. They had been duly forewarned of the risk factors. Therefore, the High Court rightly concluded that the complaint even if it is accepted in toto, would not disclose the necessary ingredients to establish criminal liability. Mr Desai reiterated that the risk factors had been prominently displayed at the commencement of the PPM. In order to ensure that the investors were well aware of the risks involved, they were invited to be guided by the 13 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 13 / 26 counsel or their own experts. Each investor had therefore accepted and acknowledged that in making the investments, they had relied only on the advice of their own experts. Mr Desai then submitted that the High Court correctly relied upon the documents placed on record by the respondent. These were documents which were required to be placed before the Magistrate by the appellant. They were deliberately withheld to mislead the Magistrate into issuing process. This according to him would amount to playing a fraud on court. Mr Desai then submitted that in spite of the fact that the respondent had not been duly served in order to avoid incalculable damage to its image, reputation and business prospects, the respondent was compelled to move to the High Court for nipping in the bud a wholly frivolous and unjustified criminal prosecution. The High Court was also justified in relying on the documents as the appellant had relied on the reply to the notice before the Magistrate. It had, however not placed on the record the notice, and the accompanying documents. The High Court also correctly stated the legal position with 14 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 14 / 26 regard to the inability of a company to possess the necessary mens rea for the commission of a criminal offence. According to Mr Desai, the facts pleaded would disclose only civil liability at best. It is submitted by him that it was not necessary for the High Court to permit the matter to proceed any further. The High Court on a correct interpretation of the various clauses of the 1992 PPM and the stock purchase agreements of 1993 and 1994, concluded that it was a case of pure and simple civil liability. It was further submitted that the High Court was within its jurisdiction to look at all the documents including the documents which were not on record. The power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is much wider than the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 401 CrPC. In support of the submissions, the learned counsel has relied on Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others [(1988) 1 SCC 692]:AIR 1988 SC 709), State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Pazdhi, [(2005) 1 SCC 568]: (AIR 2005 SC 359) and M.N.Ojha and others v. Alok Kumar Srivastav and another [(2009) 9 SCC 15 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 15 / 26 682]: )AIR 2010 SC 201]” Para-30: Mr. Desai also pointed out that the representations were not made in the year 1992 as the appellant was not incorporated till 1994, therefore, it was impossible to have made any representation to the complainant. Even otherwise, the representations were accompanied by prominent risk factors. The representations related to future projections and expectations. This is patent from the fact that although the representations were made in the year 1992-93, the system itself was not commissioned till 1998. The High Court, according to Mr.Desai, correctly relied on the risk factors. This is especially important since one Mr. S.H.Khan had been nominated by the appellant on the Board of Directors of the respondent. Apart from being a Director, he was a member of the finance Committee and Related Party Contracts Committee of Iridium Inc. Therefore, the appellants were well aware of the risk factors.” “It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages 16 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 16 / 26 can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code. “Para-45: In such circumstances, in our opinion, the High Court ought to have refrained from indulging in detailed analysis of very complicated commercial document s and reaching any definite conclusions. In our opinion, the High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceeding in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The High Court noticed that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., “the complaint in its entirety will have to be examined on the basis of the allegations made therein. But the High Court has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. The allegations in the complaint will 17 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 17 / 26 have to be accepted on the fact of it and the truth or falsity cannot be entered into by the Court at this stage.”. Having said so, the High Court proceeded to do exactly the opposite”. The aforesaid proposition of law was again reiterated by this Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others AIR SC 709 which is as follow: “The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bled and, 18 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 18 / 26 therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage”. The Court has also considered the judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) and approved the principle laying down the circumstances and the control for interference in the criminal case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-45 of the judgment has held that the High Courts should refrain from indulging in detailed analysis of very complicated commercial documents and reaching any definite conclusions. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found the High Courts exceeding the jurisdiction under the quashing criminal proceeding and set aside the order of the High Court. In Lee Kun Hee (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-26 of the judgment has taken the view which is as under : “Para-26 : We have given our thoughtful consideration to the last contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants. We are of the considered view that in offences of the 19 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 19 / 26 nature contemplated under the summoning order, there can be civil liability coupled with criminal culpability. What a party has been deprived of by an act of cheating, can be claimed through a civil action. The same deprivation based on denial by way of deception, emerging from an act of cheating, would also attract criminal liability. In the course of criminal prosecution, a complainant cannot seek a reciprocal relief, for the actions of the accused. As in the instant case, the monetary consideration under the bill of exchanged dated 1.2.2001, cannot be claimed in the criminal proceedings, for that relief the remedy would be only through a civil suit. It is therefore not possible for us to accept, that since a civil claim has been raised by the complainant-JCE Consultancy, based on the allege d breach of the agreement dated 1.12.2001, it can be prevented from initiating proceedings for penal consequences for the alleged offences committed by the accused under the Indian Penal Code. It would not be appropriate for us, to delve into the culpability of the appellant s at the present juncture, on the basis of the factual position 20 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 20 / 26 projected by the rival parties before us. The culpability (if at all) would emerge only after evidence is adduced by the rival parties before the trial court. The only conclusion that needs to be drawn, at the present juncture is, that even on the basis of the last submission canvassed on behalf of the appellants, it is not possible to quash the summoning order at this stage. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is left open to the appellants to raise their objections, if they are so advised, before the trial court. The trial court shall, as it ought to, adjudicate upon the same in consonance with law, after allowing the rival parties to lead evidence to substantiate their respective positions.” In another judgment in the case of S.W.Palanitkar (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Courbet has considered the scope of interference in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code and held that the Court should exercise the inherent power in very extreme exceptions. It will be apt to quote Para 25 and 26 of the judgment which are as follows: Para-25: The High Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the impugned 21 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 21 / 26 order placing reliance, in particular, on two decisions of this Court, one Trisuns Chemical Industry (supra) and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors.[(2000) 3 SCC 269: 2000(3) PLJR (SC) 56]. In the first case, this Court held that the exercise of inherent power should be limited to very extreme exceptions. Further it was held that referring the disputes to arbitration is not an effective substitute for a criminal prosecution when the dispute d act is an offence. It may be noted that the said judgment gets attracted only when the disputed act is an offence, which the High Court has failed to notice. No doubt, exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions but in a case where ingredients of alleged offences are not satisfied even prima facie, it cannot be said that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to quash the process issued by a Magistrate. In the case of Smt. Nagawwa (supra), it is laid down that in such a case, power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercise to quash 22 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 22 / 26 the process issued by a Magistrate. Para-26: In the second case also, this Court has expressed that “exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. … In the event, however, the court on perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations leveled in the complaint or charge- sheet on the fact of it does not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to raise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law.” Even from this case also, it is clear that if no offence is made out from the allegations made in the complaint, there should be no hesitation in exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to pass appropriate order.” Let us examine the present case on the touch stone provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to 23 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 23 / 26 above, in connection with facts mentioned above which relate to Cr.Misc.No. 28862 of 2011 which is related to Narayan Kumar, Raj Kumar and Manoj Kumar. Petitioner Narayan Kumar is father whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that while considering the matter arising from taking cognizance, this Court is not required to investigate or test truthfulness of the statements made in the complaint petition but has to be decided as it is mentioned in the complaint petition. Unless the facts are so absurd it will be improper for this Court to disbelieve the facts mentioned in the complaint case on the submission that this case is arising from a business dispute where the complainant has been working as a broker whereas petitioners are land-holders. There is specific allegation against the petitioners about taking money in consideration of executing the sale-deed in favour of the complainant or his nominee. There is an allegation that as per terms of agreement, complainant paid huge amount on commitment of execution of sale-deed but as per allegation, refused to execute the sale-deed. Only because the complainant could file a civil case, that does not mean this Court would interfere with the order of cognizance though facts mentioned in complaint petition constitute criminal offence. There is also an allegation that on 13th June 2010 when the complainant 24 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 24 / 26 approached Ram Narayan Kumar, present petitioner Rameshwar Prasad Sinha ((Petitioner of Cr.Misc.No. 6809 of 2012) requested for return of the amount paid whereupon the accused persons lost their tamper and the complainant started assaulting him with fists and slaps. Allegation has been made of taking Rupees and also a gold chain. At this stage, when there is an allegation of payment of money and not returning the same and also allegation of assault and threatening when the facts are not explicit to arrive to conclusion of falsity of the case as the court is not required to go at meticulous examination at the stage of cognizance. It is not desirable for this Court to interfere with the order impugned. However, it appears to be a business dispute where money was paid, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court if from the facts mentioned in the complaint petition, does constitute a criminal case, in that circumstance, merely because a civil suit can be filed for Redressal of remedy of recovery of money, that would not make the order of cognizance bad. Though during the argument, counsel for the petitioners has relied on the sale-deed and submitted that negotiation with the complainant did not move smoothly, the prospective purchasers directly approached the petitioners and they have paid money and, accordingly, the petitioners also 25 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 25 / 26 executed the sale-deed in their favour. He has further submitted that the sale-deed is a public document and can be relied on by this Court while exercising inherent power. This Court does not feel safe to decide the case relying on the sale/deed as the facts are not very clear to come to a positive finding. Accordingly, Cr.Misc.No. 28862 of 2011 is dismissed. In Cr. Misc.No. 6809 of 2012 only one person has been arrayed as accused in the complaint petition and there is allegation in Para-1 that Narayan Kumar along with Rameshwar Prasad (Petitioner) approached the complainant for transacting his land pressurizing to part with money in their favour. There is an allegation of failure of execution in their favour. Though such demand of return was made by complainant but Rameshwar Prasad and Narayan Kumar assaulted them. Though direct allegation has been made against this petitioner also that has been stated hereinabove the picture is not very clear and, as such, it will not be in the ends of justice to interfere with the order of cognizance. Accordingly, Cr.Misc.No. 6809 of 2012 is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioners of both the case that if they so desire, they may file application at the stage of framing of 26 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6809 of 2012 26 / 26 charge in the court below and the court below will pass order in accordance with law. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)