petitioner has got title over plot No.3388, which has an area of 84 Kathas . Thus, only for the reason that petitioner had entered into an agreement to sale with some other prior to the agreement with the complainant would not make the petitioner carrying a dishonest and fraudulent intention at the inception. Moreover, the petitioner fairly admitted the agreement to sale with the complainant and the factum of partition suit brought by her sister in the same year as well as judicial order of the court, prohibiting the parties from transferring the suit property. Therefore, judicial order was there in the way of performance of agreement by the petitioner, till dismissal of the suit in the year, 2011. Moreover, the petitioner during pendency of this proceeding had fairly conceeded and had produced a Bank Draft of double the amount of the consideration money, which included interest on the principal money. Since the complainant denied to accept the consideration money, as the complainant was interested to get the land through proceedings of the court, the matter could not be materialized amicably. However, the entire factual position of this case, as discussed above makes out a case of civil dispute only. Hence, the same cannot be allowed to be given a colour of criminal prosecution, which would apparently result in miscarriage of justice. Hence, the impugned order and entire
