IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.50195 of 2008 1. Deoki Devi, wife of Late Bahadur Pandit. 2. Babita Devi, wife of Tuntun Pandit. 3. Fagu Pandit, son of Late Tulsi Pandit. 4. Fuleswar Pandit, son of Late Kewal Pandit. 5. Anant Pandit, son of Late Manohar Pandit. All residents of Village-Ashota, P.S. Laxmipur, District-Jamui. 6. Sarita Devi, wife of Shyam Sundar Pandit, resident of Village-Kala, P.S. Laxmipur, District-Jamui. 7. Asha Devi alias Abha Devi, wife of Nand Kishore Pandit, resident of village-Barhat, P.S. Barhat, District-Jamui. 8. Tuntun Pandit, son of Sri Kalidas Pandit, resident of village-Denara, P.O. Laxmipur, District-Jamui. 9. Subodh Kumar Sinha, son of Thakur Prasad Sinha, resident of village-Chain, P.S. Jhajha, District-Jamui. ……………………………………………….Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Dulari Devi, wife of Basudeo Pandit, resident of Village-Mangrar, P.S. Laxmipur, District-Jamui. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anwar Karim, Advocate. ----------------------------------- 4. 6.9.2011. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing the order dated 7.6.2008 passed by Sri R. Das, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamui, in Complaint Case No.1590(C) of 2007, summoning the 2 accused-petitioners on inquiry finding prima facie case under Sections 341, 342, 384, 420 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for quashing the entire criminal proceedings. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that on the basis of the written report of opposite party no.2, Dulari Devi, Laxmipur P.S. Case No.99 of 2005 was instituted on 25.9.2005 against the accused- petitioners for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 384, 420 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and on investigation the police submitted the final form arriving at the conclusion that the case appears to be civil in nature but later on, on the basis of the protest petition filed by the opposite party no.2, Complaint Case No.1590(C) of 2007 was registered and on inquiry, finding the prima facie case under Sections 341, 342, 384, 420 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, accused- petitioners have been summoned through the impugned order by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamui, without considering the fact that there is civil dispute as reported by the police in submitting the final form. As such, the impugned order suffers from illegality and amounts to abuse of the process of the court. It has further been submitted that the petitioner no.1, Deoki Devi, is the mother of opposite 3 party no.2, Dulari Devi. The husband of the petitioner no.1, namely, Late Bahadur Pandit, in his life, wished to gift his properties to his all heirs and deputed to Basudeo Pandit, his son-in-law, who happens to be the husband of opposite party no.2, to that purpose but he mischievously got executed the gift deed regarding all properties in the name of his wife- opposite party no.2. Knowing about the said fact Late Bahadur Pandit executed the registered deeds on 1.3.1989 to cancel the alleged gift deeds. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 executed the sale deed in respect of some portion of the land on 9.6.2005, which is the cause of annoyance of the opposite party no.2, and to file this false case against the accused- petitioners. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate on perusal of the complaint petition, S.A. of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses arrived at the conclusion that prima facie case for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 384, 420 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused-petitioners and, accordingly, summoned the accused-petitioners finding prima facie case under the aforesaid Sections against the accused-petitioners. 4 At the time of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is not required to look into the defence of accused rather the Magistrate is required to see whether on perusal of complaint petition and statements of witnesses prima facie case is made out or not. As such, the impugned order does not indicate about the abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all the issues, raised herein, at the appropriate stage during the course of the trial. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)