IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50187 of 2007 1. VIKASH CHANDRA JHA son of late Indra Nand Jha resident of Mohalla- Navneet Nagar, P. S.- Katihar, District- Katihar. 2. Md. Ramjani s/o Late Allauddin, resident of Mohalla- Amlatola, P.s. Katihar, District- Katihar. … Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal s/o Late Durga Prasad Agrawal, resident of M. G. Road, Katihar, P. S. & Katihar. … Opposite parties. ----------- 4. 29.03.2010 Heard Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The prayer in this application for quashing the order taking cognizance for offence under Sections 440, 451, 468, 471 I.P.C. is sought to be pressed on the ground that a bare reading of the complaint petition makes it clear that it is out and out a civil dispute pertaining to possession of the house in question for which a title suit was pending between the co-sharers. In the opinion of this court the matter does not seem to be as simple as has been projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners. From a bare of reading of following paragraphs 10 to 14 of the complaint petition quoted hereinbelow:- “…..10). That in the meantime the evil eyes of the accused No. 1 fell on the said Ranu Agrawal and the property in her 2 possession, hence accused No. 1 Vikash Chandra Jha kidnapped Ranu Agrawal and her children and got forcefully executed a fake power of Attorney on 27.06.2003 in his name in the guise of pursuing her case in the Court. Ranu Agrawal and her children are traceless since then and they have not been seen at Katihar the said Power of Attorney has been filed in the court and used as genuine. 11). That the information to the said effect was given to the Police but the Police instead of taking legal action are appearing hand in glove with said Vikash Chandra Jha who happened to be a land Mafia/land grabber and is the right hand man of some eminent political personality as well as some of the high officials of the government. 12). That Ranu Agrawal and her children are still in wrongful confinement of said Vikash Chandra Jha and the said Vikash Chandra Jha in absence of Ranu Agrawal and her children has forcibly entered into house of the complainant on 10.07.2003 at 7 A.M. and illegally taken possession of the portion of the building occupied by Ranu Agrawal with the help of accused No. 2 and some others unknown persons and have been illegally and forcibly running their illegal activities in the open eye of law. The complainant has informed the Police about that occurrence but the Police again played hand in golve with the said accused persons and did not take any action against them. 13). That on 03.07.2004 at 1.30 P.M. both the accused persons went on the roof of the house of complainant and started beating the roof with heavy substance deliberately on the portion of the roof below which the complainant used to sit and move in his shop with an intention to cause death or hurt to the complainant so that he succumbs to his illegal possession and flee away from Katihar, the said incident/occurrence was seen by the witness. But due to fear of life none is ready to be a witness. 14). That the building has been 3 constructed almost 60 years ago by the mother of the complainant and knowing full well that any mischief caused on the roof of the building below whose the complainant runs his business may cause his death or hurt, accused persons committed said act that the complainant would be finished by that mischief and thereby committed an offence that of attempt to murder as well as and as such they are liable to be punished under the law for all the illegal act which they have committed….” it would transpire that apart from civil dispute the real issue had emerged on account of alleged kidnapping of Ranu Agrawal and her children by the petitioners. How far that allegation is correct can be subject matter of trial but at the stage of taking cognizance it cannot be said that the ingredients for the offence alleged were not made out from perusal of the complaint petition as a whole. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on a judgment of this court in the case of D. Pradeep Kishan @ D. vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in 2010 (1) PLJR 459 will have no application in the facts and circumstances of this case inasmuch as there it was allegation pertaining to a dispute regarding hatching of conspiracy for creating a forgery in the document relating to transaction of property. Here in the present case 4 however persons including the petitioners are said to have been kidnapped Renu Agrawal and her children who are still missing and in which the complicity of the petitioners has also surfaced as clearly alleged in the complaint petition. Apparently, the facts of the case of D. Pradeep Kishan (supra) are not at all similar to the one in the present case. Consequently, no blank proposition of law can be laid down nor has it been done so in the aforesaid case by this Court that merely because the dispute prima facie appears to be of civil nature, no criminal proceeding would lie. As noted above, and in fact it is also clear from the aforementioned quoted paragraph of complaint that the alleged involvement of the petitioner the offence alleged is writ large on the face of record. That being so, this court would not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. It however goes without saying that the petitioners will have liberty to raise all the issues at the appropriate stage in the trial court. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)