IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29232 of 2006 MD.YASIN, son of late Sk. Safiruddin, resident of village Palapur, P.S. Balrampur, District-Katihar … Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bibi Sabera Khatoon, wife of Abdul Qaiyum resident of village Pelapur, P.S.-Balrampur, District-Katihar .. Opp. Parties ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr Faruk Ahmad, Sr. Advocate Md. Helal Ahmad, For the Opposite Party :- Md Qumul Hoda For the State. :- Damodar Prasad Tiwary, A.P.P. 10 11.04.2011 Petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.11.2003 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and also order dated 28.06.2006 passed in Cr. Revision No. 8 of 2004 by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Katihar, Fast Track Court No. IV, Katihar. The petitioner is the relative of the Md. Sultan. The complainant Bibi Sabera, wife of Abdul Qaiyum has stated in paragraph one of the complaint petition that her husband sold 2 decimals of land to Md. Sk. Sultan over which he has constructed a thatched house, allegedly on the portion of the land which belonged to the complainant. After hearing this, the complainant’s husband objected which led to a hot exchange of words inbetween them and Sk. 2 Sultan filed a case in the police station vide Balrampur P.S. Case No. 20 of 2002 dated 13.03.2002 under Section 447, 448, 323, 427, 504 and 379/34 of the I.P.C. Thereafter, the villagers hold a panchayati to resolve the matter between Md. Sultan and the complainant’s husband. However, the Panchayat failed to resolve the matter. It is further stated in the complaint petition that on 16.03.2002, the petitioner and other co-accused i.e Md. Sultan and Md. Qasim came to the house of the complainant looking for her husband. Md. Yasin said to have entered into the house of the complainant and forcibly rapped her. It is said that the husband of the complainant was not present on the date of alleged occurrence as he had gone out of town. It is also alleged that the petitioner took away a box containing gold and silver ornaments etc. which caused substantial loss to the complainant. The main argument of this case is that entire case has been instituted because of the admitted fact that Md. Sultan had lodged a case against the husband of the complainant which is mentioned in the complaint petition itself. It has further been clarified that complainant and 3 her husband came immediately after the occurrence, after which steps taken by the complainant to the police station to file the case. In the F.I.R., which has been filed by the Md. Sultan, it would appear that investigation was concluded on 21.04.2002. In the investigation of the aforesaid case, it has been disclosed that there was a hot exchange of words between Md. Sultan and Md. Qasim and Md Israil. During investigation, no such instance has been reported by any of the parties. Allegedly, there is also dispute on land between the petitioner and the husband of the complainant for which cases are also pending between them. The petitioner has given information regarding the behavior of Abdul Qaiyum, husband of the complainant to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar as far as back in the year 2000. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that this case has been instituted as a defense and is a misuse of process of law. It is further submitted that the case has been filed to take revenge as there are cases between the parties arising out of land disputes pending 4 between all the accused persons and the husband of the complainant. It has also brought to the notice of the Court that she was not examined by the doctor on the date of occurrence or thereafter rather, which indicates that in fact no such occurrence has been taken place and the entire case is false and fabricated. There is finding of the Court that there were no material to indicate that any offence has taken place under section 379 of the I.P.C which is confirmed by the finding of the Revisional court as well. The witnesses who were examined in this case are not eye witnesses and claim that the occurrence has taken place because of Md. Yasin and they have also accepted that this occurrence has taken place because of the disputes pending between the parties. It is noteworthy that in the statement under supplementary affidavit the lady has stated that there was a dispute between the parties with respect to the land. It is said that “ iapk;rh gqbZ Fkh A iapk;rh dh ckr ugh ekus A rc Fkkuk esa dsl dh A ?kVuk ,d ekg dh gS A” This indicates that the contention of the complainant prima facie shows that the case has been instituted maliciously and to take revenge from the petitioner and other co-accused. 5 In the result, I quash the order of taking cognizance dated 15.11.2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 365 of 2002. Ashwini/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)