Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.24131 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Yogendra Prasad son of Late Karu Prasad,resident of village Sandohara, P.S.Nardiganj, District Nawada 2. Shiv Nath Prasad, son of Late Chottu Prasad, resident of Village Murgiya Chok, P.S.Warisaliganj, District Nawada 3. Raj Kumari Devi wife of Shivnath Prasad, resident of village Murgiyachak, P.S.Warisaliganj, District Nawada. 4. Krishnadeo Prasad Halwai, son of Late Laxmi Lal Halwai, resident of Mohalla- Purani Bazar, P.S.Nawada, District Nawada 5. Shrimati Malti Devi, wife of Yogendra Prasad, resident of village Sandoha, P.S.Nardiganj, District Nawada 6. Surgriv Lal Burnawal, son of Sita Ram Lal, resident of Mohalla Mushlim Road, P.S.Nawada, District Nawada. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Siya Ram Singh son of Late Ram Lakhan Singh, resident of Mohalla Ramnagar, P.S.Nawada District, Nawada .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 5 10-02-2012 The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nawada in Complaint Case No. 998/09 taking cognizance against the petitioners under [STATUTE] . 2. According to the complaint filed by opposite party no. 2 the petitioners have fraudulently got certain lands transferred to themselves on the basis of forged documents. It is further alleged that the petitioners entered the house of the opposite party no.2 armed with pistols and lathi, assaulted and threatened the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24131 of 2010 (5) dt.10-02-2012 2 complainant and demanded Rs.10 lakhs after firing from the pistol. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint is malicious and is in any event, only the result of an ongoing civil dispute between the parties. Moreover, in the complaint the crucial facts of the ongoing litigation in relation to a Title Suit No.260/89 which had been decreed in favour of Krishnadeo Prasad Halwai, petitioner no. 4 (Annexure-3) as also the details of an appeal in the Mutation Case No.20/2008-09 decided on 31.3.2009 in favour of Malti Devi wife of the petitioner no. 1 have all been suppressed. On these facts it has been submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. In support of his submission he has relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2007 (2) PLJR 235 [Baldeo Singh v. the State of Bihar] wherein it has been observed that only a regular Civil Court can declare whether or nor a paper is forged or is a genuine one and accordingly the continuance of criminal proceedings in that case was quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further contends that the petitioners will get adequate opportunity before the learned Trial Court by way of filing a discharge petition which Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24131 of 2010 (5) dt.10-02-2012 3 may be considered on its own merit and that the matter is also approaching the stage of framing of charges inasmuch as the statements of two witnesses have already been recorded and who have also been cross examined by the petitioners.. 5. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 relies on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2001 (1) PLJR 42 SC [State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi] to support his proposition that once the charge is framed, the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by the superior Courts. 6. On going through the materials on record I find that the Title Suit No. 260/89 as also appeal in the Mutation Case referred to above were decreed/decided well before filing of the present complaint. It is also not in dispute that the Title Suit has been taken up further in a Miscellaneous Appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge for setting aside the exparte decree which is said to be pending 7. It also appears from the complaint that these crucial facts relating to the ongoing property disputes were in fact not stated therein, rather a vague allegation in para 3 thereof has been made that with criminal intent the petitioners had got the land transferred in their favour based on a forged document. 8. I also find on a perusal of the cognizance order that the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24131 of 2010 (5) dt.10-02-2012 4 learned Magistrate has, after due application of mind and on the basis of the materials on record, concluded that the allegations relating to firing of pistol etc., were not credible and as such no cognizance was taken under the Arms Act against the petitioners. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that the instant complaint is motivated and has been filed only to harass the petitioners in the backdrop of the ongoing litigation and land disputes between the parties. The decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 relates to a stage after the charge has been framed, which is not the case here and as such the decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned cognizance order dated 26.11.2009 arising out of Complaint Case No. 998/09 is hereby quashed and the petition stands allowed. Chandran (Vikash Jain, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 452

Statute Text:
Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. House-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt, assault, etc. Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting and person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.