CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25302 OF 2001 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure --------- 1. Gunanand Sah, Son of Late Bokai Sah 2. Md. Yashin Son of Sad Ali 3. Amanullah Son of Md. Yashin 4. Trilik Nath Jha, Son of Kripa Nath Jha, All residents of Bairgachhi, P.S. Araria, District-Araria --------------------- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ram Jatan Bhagat, Son of Late Kamla Bhagat, resident of Araria (Mouza-Bairgachhi), District-Araria --------- Opp.Parties. ------- For the petitioners: Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate For the State: Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 14.09.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in Araria P.S. Case No.300 of 1998. By the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 447, 427,379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a written report before the Officer Incharge of Araria Police Station alleging therein that the petitioners have committed offence under Sections 447,427, 379 /34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the written report that he was residing at Ranchi and when he returned back to Araria , he saw that the accused persons had unauthorizedly 2 constructed a hut over the land of the informant. It was alleged that bricks were also removed from the land of the informant. The informant alleged that earlier also whenever he had come back, he had noticed unauthorized occupation of the land by the accused persons and other cases were also filed. After registering the F.I.R., the police investigated the same and finally the police submitted final report on 31.01.1998. The police found that the case under Section 447,427,379/34 of the Indian Penal Code was in relation to the land dispute and the allegation was proved. However, it was observed that the matter appears to be a civil dispute and may be decided by the court of civil jurisdiction. 3. After submission of the final report, the learned Magistrate examined the materials available in the case diary and police report and after being satisfied that prima facie case was made out the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 14.9.2000 took cognizance of offence under Sections 447, 427, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. It was finally admitted on 8.5.2003. While admitting, this Court directed that during the pendency of this application, interim order of stay dated 29.1.2002 will continue. The order of stay is still continuing. 5. Sri Amish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside on the ground that the dispute was purely civil in nature and even 3 while submitting the final report, the Investigating Agency had observed that the dispute can be decided by the court of civil jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also submitted that on earlier occasions, cases were filed by the complainant and at least on two occasions, this Court quashed the order of cognizance. On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed to quash the impugned order of cognizance. 6. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the petitioners has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 7. The plea, which has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, can be looked into at the appropriate stage. This Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. The petition stands rejected. 8. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to raise all the points, which have been raised in the present petition or any other points, if available, at the appropriate stage. 9. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. It goes without saying that rejection of the present petition may not prejudice the petitioners at any subsequent stage. Patna High Court,Patna Dated :the 6th September,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)