Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6273 of 2011 (2) dt.11-04-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.6273 of 2011 ====================================================== Shyam Sundar Singh & Ors. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Binod Kumar, Adv. Mr.Vijay Anand, Adv. For the State : Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 11-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. In this case petitioners are challenging the order dated 23rd June 2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 1164 of 2008 whereby the court below has taken cognizance [STATUTE] de Chautham P.S.Case No.119 of 2007 where it has been stated that after the emersion of idol of Goddess Kali on 13.2007 the ilnstalled kiosk over turned on the instruction of petitioner standing on the land appertaining to Khata No. 377 Khesra No. 3598 measuring an area of 6 katha 10 dhurs. It has further been alleged that not only they caused the loss to the shop keepers but entered into the Kali Sthan and had taken away valuables which was lying in the box and on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6273 of 2011 (2) dt.11-04-2012 resistance they also resorted to firing in the air which led to filing this case. Police submitted final form but on protest petition the court has taken cognizance as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is completely of civil nature and it is an admitted fact that the land has been purchased by the petitioner on 12th May 2005 and 6 katha ½ dhurs were purchased jointly and out of that 1 katha 3 dhurs were left for construction of Kali Mandir. It has further been submitted that it is an undisputed fact that the land belongs to the petitioners and they cannot be prevented from taking possession of the land. It has further been submitted that the temples have been constructed by the vendee of the land and no donation whatsoever has been taken from the public and, as such, it is completely a private deity and the 3rd party cannot claim any right over it. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to an order passed [STATUTE] uted plot and has further submitted that earlier also licence was not granted to the O.P.No.2 as he was having criminal antecedent and for the same cause, a Police case has also been lodged against the complainant, vide Chautham P.S.Case No. 120 of 2007 on the same day. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6273 of 2011 (2) dt.11-04-2012 Learned counsel for the O.P. has contradictd the statement of the petitioners and submitted that there was a case where relief of injunction has been refused by the trial court and the matter is pending before the higher court. Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a finding of prima facie case, but no injunction has been granted. The Court cannot decide here about the right, title of the petitioners in the present dispute but the nature of allegation that has been made in the complaint petition make out the offence mentioned therein and the court below has taken cognizance under the aforesaid Sections. At this stage the defence taken by the petitioner cannot be looked into. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points at the time of framing of charge. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.