IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43642 of 2007 1. ASHOK KUMAR YADAV 2. MITHILESH KUMAR YADAV 3. AKHILESH KUMAR YADAV (ALL S/O SRI KRISHNA MOHAN YADAV, R/O VILL.- BARARI, P.S. BARARI, DIST. KATIHAR) ---- PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RUDAL PARIHAR S/O LATE HATTHU PARIHAR (R/O VILL. BANDH TOLA, TERASI, SIKHAT, P.S. BARARI DIST. KATIHAR) --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh & Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advts. For the State : Mr. Matloob Rab, A.P.P. For the Opp.Party No.2 : None ----------- 04. 16.02.2010 Rule. Mr. Matloob Rab waives service of notice for opposite party no.1. Nobody appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 in spite of service of notice on him. Petitioners are the purchasers of certain plots of land executed in their favour by mother of Rajendra Narayan Chaudhary (accused no.1). The complainant lodged a complaint case bearing no. 1581 of 2007 alleging therein that there was a dispute between him and co-accused no.-1 relating to certain pieces of land measuring 2.15 acres. It has been asserted that the complainant was in possession of those lands since last 12 years. A proceeding under Section 48(E) of the Bihar Tenancy Act vide Bataidari Case No. 187/1988-89 in the Court of D.C.L.R., Katihar was levied by the complainant against the accused no.1. The said matter was ultimately compromised and a 2 baibayana was agreed to be executed between the present complainant and accused no.1. It is alleged that the mother of accused no.1, namely, Janki Devi (not the accused in the present case) sold part of the disputed land in favour of the present three petitioners for consideration. It is thus alleged that the present petitioners (accused nos. 3 to 5) acted in criminal conspiracy with other co-accuseds and got the land sold to them. A bare perusal of the complaint would show that the petitioners herein are the bonafide purchasers of part of the disputed land. The executor of the sale-deeds i.e. mother of accused no.1, is not an accused in the present case. Going by the allegations contained in the complaint, it is apparent that ownership of the land with the executor of the sale-deed(s) is not disputed. What has been alleged is that the accused no.1 although entered into an agreement for sale of land (including the land involved in the present proceeding) but dishonestly got them sold several years thereafter in favour of the present petitioners. It appears from the facts and circumstances of this case taken note hereinabove, the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of land for valuable consideration. They thus cannot be enmeshed in the present proceeding and made to undergo the rigours of trial. Admittedly they are purchasers of land from a person who had title over the land. Continuance of the criminal proceeding on these facts against the petitioners shall be abuse of the process of Court. This Court also finds from the impugned order taking cognizance that the same has not adverted to these aspects of the matter and to that extent it can be termed as mechanical. It is settled law that criminal 3 proceedings should not be used as an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. Reference in this regard may be made in case of Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, reported in A.I.R. 1992 SC 1815. Considering all aspects of the matter, this Court is fully convinced that the present proceeding against the petitioners should be quashed for the ends of justice. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 27.07.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Katihar, in C.A.Case no. 1581 of 2007, in so far as the present petitioners are concerned, is/are hereby quashed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)