IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14086 of 2007 1. RAM NARESH PANDEY, SON OF BIPNESHWAR PANDEY 2. JITENDRA PANDEY, SON OF BIPNESHWAR PANDEY BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAHUA, TULSIAHI, P.S. BIHRA, DISTRICT SAHARSA. ---- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. TRIVENI PANDEY, SON OF LATE DAYANAND PANDEY, WARD NO. 8, MEHTA BHAWAN ROAD, P.S. SAHARSA, DISTRICT SAHARSA. ---- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 8 31.3.2010 This case was first heard on 18.7.2007 and notice was issued to the opposite and rule was made returnable within six weeks. On 11.9.2008 the matter was again heard and it was adjourned so that both the parties could come to an understanding and settle matters out of Court. Again on 28.4.2009 the counsels again took time to resolve the differences between them. The matter was again heard on 11.5.2009 and a joint prayer was made for listing the case on 18th of May, 2009. On 18th of May, 2009 the counsels submitted before the Court that there is a hope for some sort of compromise between the parties and as such it was asked to be place after summer vacation. In the mean time, on 16.9.2009 the trial began and the opposite party examined P.W. 1 as his first witness. The opposite party ought to have prayed to the Court that the matter is pending before the High Court where a prayer has been made on behalf of the opposite party as well as the petitioners that they are going to resolve the matter. It appears that no such information was given to the Trial Court by the opposite party no. 2 and as such the matter proceeded and four witnesses have been examined, the last one on 23.2.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sale deed was executed on 1.9.1993 for 18 Kathas of land appertaining to 2 plot no. 205 and 213. The present case has been filed in January, 2006 alleging that the petitioners ought to have also included plot no. 706. On being asked to explain the delay, counsel for the opposite party submits that the delay was caused due to the fact that the Kewala was in the name of the wife of the opposite party and the opposite party did not live at Saharsa and as such he could not know of the contents of the Kewala. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party was not in possession of plot no. 706 for past 13 years is very relevant and the excuse given, which even according to this Court is rather frivolous cannot be considered by the Court to be very relevant. Any witness coming after 13 years and saying that there was a sale of plot no. 706 by the vendor to the vendee is also very very lame. Counsel for the petitioners who is vendor in this case submitted that he was willing to pay back the cost of 18 kathas of land at the present market rate. At the time when the reconciliation proceedings were being held by this Court, yet no settlement could be reached. Counsel for the opposite party submits today that the counsel appearing earlier in this case was not duly instructed by his client. In any view of the matter the facts do not reveal that any offence is made out under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the opposite party is emphasizing on one 3 fact i.e. that the witnesses have been examined and the only Investigating Officer has to be examined in this case. Ordinarily this Court would not have interfered in a case of this nature but when the parties had appeared in Court personally and settlement proceedings are going on in this Court, it is very unfair on behalf of opposite party no. 2 not to inform the Trial Court regarding the progress of this case and to have taken advantage of the fact that there was no stay order. I find that no offence is made out under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the further continuance of the proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of law and it is a malicious proceeding instituted after a gap of 13 years. In these peculiar circumstances, I quash the entire case relating to Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 118 of 2006 giving rise to G.R. Case No. 394 of 2006 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa and all the subsequent orders and proceedings in this case. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)