Criminal Miscellanious No.32562 OF 2006 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1. SHAHABUDDIN AHMAD @ MD. AZAD, SON OF MOHIUDDIN. 2. MD. FASIHUDDIN @ JAWAHAR, SON OF ZIAUDDIN. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DANYALPUR (GAURA-3), P.S. TEGHRA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MD. IQUBAL, SON OF LATE MD. RIZWAN, RESIDENT OF DANYALPUR (GAURA-3), P.S. TEGHRA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and nobody appears for the complainant. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 11.7.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 250 C of 2006 under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner no. 1 is an engineer working in Jamshedpur. Petitioner no. 2 is a B.Sc. student. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the petitioners came to the house of the complainant. Petitioner no. 2 was carrying an iron rod and petitioner no. 1 took out a pistol and put it against the temple of the complainant and asked him to sign on a stamp paper. It is also said that the petitioner no. 2’s wife took out of Rs. 700/- from the pocket of the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the case has been instituted under Sections 323, 341 2 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In the S.A. the complainant admits that the petitioners and the complainant are neighbours and that there is a land dispute between them. However, the reason why the petitioner no. 1 forced the complainant to sign on the paper has neither been disclosed in the complaint petition nor the subsequent statement of the complainant or the witnesses in this case. 5. This Court finds it hard to believe that the junior engineer working in Tata Steel Company would entered into the house of his neighbour and forced him to sign on a piece of paper for apparently no particular purpose. Specially as it is admitted by the complainant that both the parties are neighbour and there is a land dispute between them. The allegation of assault is also not supported in the subsequent statement of both the witnesses nor has any injury report annexed with the complaint petition. It is also apparent that a 107 and 147 proceeding is pending between the parties which are apparent from the pleading and the annexures in this petition. 6. In the circumstances, I find the allegations unbelievable, as such Complaint Case No. 250 C of 2006 is hereby quashed. This application is allowed. Patna High Court, Dated the 28th of March, 2011, N.A.F.R./Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)