IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39329 of 2006 BIRENDRA RAI & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 7. 19.03.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 6. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 28.2.2003 in Amnaur PA Case No. 167 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3659/97/Tr. No. 1188/2002 under Section 420/34 of the penal Code passed by the Judicial Magistrate Saran at Chapra as affirmed on in Cr. Revision No. 123/2003 by the Additional District & Sessions judge (F.T.C. – I ) Saran at Chapra on 13.3.2003. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the allegations in the FIR, there is a purely civil dispute with regard to ownership of a land. As per the allegations the petitioners are neither the vendor nor the vendees. There has been no wrongful gain to them. The entire allegations are against Deyali Roy. Petitioner nos. 6 and 5 are only stated to be identifier and witness to the sale deed and gift deed executed by Deyali Roy. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that Deyali Roy sold the lands in question to opposite party no. 2. He thereafter sole the same lands to his daughter and gifted part of it to his grand son. Petitioners 5 and 6 became the identifier and witness to these deeds. The others were interfering in his peaceful possession of the lands. Learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 fairly conceded from the allegations that the offence under Section 420 IPC, if any, was made out against Deyali Roy. He however alleges that in so far as the present petitioners are concerned they would come within the ambit of Section 34 of the Penal Code and there are allegation that petitioners 5 and 6 conspired with Deyali Roy and the former became the identifier and witness to the subsequent deeds. The FIR does not contain any statement that the petitioners 5 and 6 became the identifier and witness to the fresh sale deed and gift deed executed by Deyali Roy aware and conscious that Deyali Roy had earlier sold the lands to the opposite party nos. 2 to 6. Had that been so, perhaps, there may have been some substance in the statement on behalf of opposite party no. 2 with regard to petitioners 5 and 6. In so far as petitioners 1 to 4 are concerned the only allegation against them is that they were apparently helping others in disturbing the peaceful possession of opposite party no. 2 to the lands. Apparently on the fact of it no offence is made out against them even under Section 34 of the Penal Code. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no justification to allow continuance of the prosecution of the petitioners in Amnour PS Case No. 167/97. The same is accordingly quashed. This application is allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)