IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52072 of 2007 1. RAMJI TIWARI, S/o Late Vishawanath Tiwari. 2. Sudama Tiwari, S/o Ramji Tiwari. 3. Pramod Tiwari @ Pramod Kumar Tiwari, S/o Ramji Tiwari. All resident of Village-Jandaha, P.S.-Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabua). …….Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Awadhesh Tiwari, S/o Late Surya Nath Tiwari, Resident of Village-Jandaha, P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Kaimur (Bhabua) …..Opp. Parties. -------- For the Petitioner : Kumar Sunil, Adv. For the State : A.P.P. ---------- 03. 19.03.2010 Heard the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding including the order dated 13.02.2001 by which Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kaimur (Bhabua) has taken cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 379 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 595 of 1998 and the order dated 06.10.2007 by which the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-5, Kaimur (Bhabua) in Cr. Revision No. 62 of 2001/9 of 2001/51 of 2006 has dismissed the application of the petitioner, filed for quashing the order of cognizance. The application was heard on 27.02.2008 and notices were issued to the Opposite Party No. 2 - 2 - who, despite notices, has chosen not to appear before this court. The case of the Opposite Party No. 2, complainant is that on 18.06.1998 the accused persons came upon the lands of the complainant and started to construct a hutment and on his protest he was assaulted with fists and slaps and Rs. 15,000/- was taken away from him. The complainant gave information to the police about the occurrence upon which Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 88 of 1998 was instituted but after due investigation a final report was submitted in the matter finding the case to be false. However, a protest was filed by the complainant and cognizance was taken by the court below as stated above. From the narrative of the complaint, I find that the same is completely vague and general in nature and obviously instituted on account of a land dispute between the parties. There is no doubt that the High Court in his jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be circumspect in quashing a criminal prosecution at the threshold but at the same time there is no doubt - 3 - that this Court is fully justified in setting aside a criminal prosecution if it finds the same to be a gross abuse of the processes of the court. In the present case, I have no hesitation in holding that the complaint being totally general and vague in nature no purpose would be served in proceeding further in the case. Under the circumstances, the application is allowed and the order dated 13.02.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kaimur (Bhabua) in Complaint Case No. 595 of 1998 and the order dated 06.10.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-5, Kaimur (Bhabua) in Cr. Revision No. 62 of 2001/9 of 2001/51 of 2006 are quashed. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)