IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.569 of 2002 ================================================== 1. Ram Bachan Singh, son of late Jainath Singh 2. Ram Bilash Singh, son of Late Manbodh Singh 3. Radheshyam Singh, son of Late Manbodh Singh 4. Mahangu Singh @ Bhim Singh, son of Late Kunjan Singh. (All are residents of village-Turkawali, P.S.-Mohania, District- Kaimur (Bhabua) .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Basgeet Pasi, son of Late Dukharam Pasi, resident of village- Turkawalia, P.S.-Mohania, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) .... .... Opposite Parties ================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate. For the State : Dr. Rabindra Kumar, Addl. P.P. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 29.05.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua in complaint case no.105/2002 by which a prima facie case has been found against them for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 379/34, 504 and 420 of the I.P.C. and order has been passed for issuance of summons against them. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.02.2002, Patna High Court CR. REV. No.569 of 2002 dt.09-11-2011 2 the complaint-opposite party no.2 were sitting with the witnesses and after hearing Hulla, he went and saw that the accused petitioner no.4 Mahangu Singh was digging and other accused were armed with Lathi and Bhala were helping him in establishing ‘Khutta’ (Shumbhi). The son of the complainant protested. Thereafter, the accused petitioner Ram Bachan Singh abused him and told that he had sold the land to Mahangu Singh. The complainant asked to get the land measured. Thereafter, at the instance of Ram Bachan Singh, all the accused assaulted the complainant and his son. It has been further alleged that accused Ram Bachan Singh snatched a wrist watch of the son of the complainant and accused Radhe Shyam Singh and Mahangu Singh took out Rs.300/- from the pocket of the complainant. After going the accuse from the place of occurrence, the complainant made complaint before the co-villagers, who told that Ram Bachan Singh, Ram Vilash Singh and Radhe Shyam Singh had sold the land in his favour of plot no.171, but at the time of taking possession, he gave the possession of the land of plot no.173, which is Gairmaizurua land. Thereafter, the complainant went to the accused and asked that they have committed cheating and handed over the land of plot no.173, which Patna High Court CR. REV. No.569 of 2002 dt.09-11-2011 3 does not belong to them and he has sold the land, which was transferred to the complainant. He also asked the accused to get a Bazidawa (deed of relinquishment) in his favour from the accused Mahangu Singh, but, they did not abide by his request and also refused to return the consideration money. After examination of the complainant and his witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found a prima facie case against the accused petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate that from perusal of the complaint petition itself, it is clear that it is a case of civil nature and in fact, the present case has been filed to harass the petitioners with ulterior motive. The complainant has himself admitted that he is in wrong possession of the land and he has also accepted that the registered sale deed of the accused petitioner no.4 is for the same land. From perusal of the entire materials on record, no criminal case is made out against the petitioners. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Vijay Kumar Thakur Vs. Prof. Mahesh Prasad Singh reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 315 and also a decision in the case of Md. Abdul Raquib @ Abdul Patna High Court CR. REV. No.569 of 2002 dt.09-11-2011 4 Raquib & others Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 556. He has further submitted that the land which has been transferred in favour of the accused Mahangu Singh has not made any complaint against the vendor Ram Bachan Singh, Ram Vilash Singh and Radhe Shyam Singh. As such, cheating if any would have been caused to later purchaser Mahangu Singh. He has further submitted that the case appears to be of civil nature and the offence under Sections 323, 379 and 504 are ornamental. He has further submitted that the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.4 are Govt. servant and there was no occasion for them to be present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that although the case appears to be of civil nature, but, the complainant has also option to pursue the remedy which is available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on the record, it appears that the main contention of the dispute is the land. There is land Patna High Court CR. REV. No.569 of 2002 dt.09-11-2011 5 dispute between both the parties due to the transfer of the land of plot no.171 in favour of the accused petitioner no.4. The object for filing of the complaint petition appears not to punish the accused, but only to harass them. It appears from the materials on record that the case has been instituted for different purpose and not for punishing the accused for the acts and omissions constituted an offence. Moreover, the case appears to be of civil nature. The complainant cannot be allowed process of court to be abused. It also appears from the record that the proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case no.105/2002 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabua has remained stayed vide order dated 11.07.2002 passed by this Court. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. In the result, this petition is allowed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 9th November, 2011 NAFR/V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)