CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.6965 OF 2004 ********* In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ********* 1. MD. KALIMUDDIN. 2. Md. Munna Miya @ Md. Jasimuddin. Both are sons of Late Sarphuddin. Both resident of Village-Nadaul, P.S. Masaurhi, District-Patna. -----------------(Petitioners) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Surendra Prasad, S/o Ramdahin Yadav, Resident of Village-Nadaul Mathiya, P.S.-Masaurhi, District- Patna. -------------(Opposite Parties) ********* For the Petitioners : Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Adv. : Mr. Jitendra Nath Tiwary, Adv. : Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv. For Oppsite Party No. 2: Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Adv. : Mr. Sada Nand Ray, Adv. For the State : Mr. Chaubey Jawahar, A.P.P. *********** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *********** Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 08.08.2003 passed by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi by which he has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 341, 323, 427, 452 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 174 (C) of 2002. The case of the complainant is that on 2 19.09.2002 some government officials and the petitioners came upon his house and committed excesses and therefore they were liable for punishment for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 395, 452, 307, 457 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On 19.09.2005 the Opposite Party No. 2 was noticed and the further proceedings in the court below was stayed and thereafter on 25.10.2005 the application was admitted in the absence of the Opposite Party No. 2 who had appeared through Vakalatnama. Today both the parties are present with rival contentions. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that from the complaint petition itself it is apparent that there was Title Suit pending between the parties indicating that there was land dispute between them. Further submission is that in fact there was a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which was initiated between the parties and the possession of the petitioner was declared on the disputed land. In 3 the said proceeding it was held that the Opposite Party No. 2 had dis-possessed the petitioners and therefore the Court had ordered for restoring possession as required under Section 145(6) Cr. P.C. Aggrieved by this order the Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application before this Court but the same was dismissed by order dated 15.10.2001 vide C.W.J.C. No. 12078 of 2001 upholding the order of the learned Magistrate. When the issue was finally decided by Court of law an application was made for effecting possession of the petitioners on the said property and finally the DM deputed a force which would go upon the property on 19.09.2002 and give effect to the order of the Court restoring possession of the property to the petitioners. Pursuant thereof on 19.09.2002 the petitioners were put in possession of the disputed property. Being aggrieved by legitimate action of the petitioners and the authorities concerned the complainant with a view to harass the petitioners instituted this false case obviously for reasons of vendetta. The Opposite 4 Party No. 2 has not been able to justify the pendency of the further proceedings in the court below. Considering the above, I conclude that the complaint is nothing but malicious prosecution and am duty bound to quash the same. In the result, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 08.08.2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi by which he has taken cognizance in Complaint Case No. 174 (C) of 2002 is hereby set aside. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 15th July, 2010 NAFR/ Vikash/- ( Anjana Prakash, J.)