CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.21065 OF 2005 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1. BUDHIYA DEVI, wife of Laldas Yadav 2. Kameshwar Yadav, son of late Raja yadav 3. Naresh Yadav, son of Ram vilash Yadav 4. Hirdya Yadav @ Hirdyanand Yadav, son of Ram Vilash Yadav. All residents of village – Baikunthpur Laraua Police station Karpi, District – Arwal (Jehanabad) ---------- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Indrapari Devi, wife of late Bhuneshwar Singh, resident of village Aieara Tola Shiv Nagar Post Office Pakharpur police station Karpi District – Arwal (Jehanabad). ---------(Opposite Parties). ***** For the Petitioner : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar, Adv. For the Opp. Party No.2: Mr. Ajay Kumar Gautam, Adv. For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP. ***** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ****** Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This is an application for quashing of the order dated 06.05.2005 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, in G.R. No. 1912/1998/T.R.No.1267/2005 refusing the prayer of the petitioners to discharge. - 2 - 3. The case stands on the basis of complaint petition bearing complaint case no. 391/1998 filed by opposite party no.2 against petitioners besides one Baijnath Yadav, ascribed the documents who is not party to the proceeding here. 4. The admitted relevant facts of the case is that there was agreement between the two sides for transfer of a particular piece of land on payment of consideration, the concerned parties arrived at the Registry Officer, where ascriber was instructed to ascribe the deed, documents were executed at the time of accepting execution before the Registry as alleged, the complainant informant could know that beyond the agreement, two documents were prepared with respect to 49 decimals land each for consideration of Rs. 39,000/- each, instead as per her case, the agreement was to transfer only 49 decimals of land for Rs. 39,000/- one document was prepared and executed. The complainant informant did not accept the execution, consequently, there was no registration and the documents were ordered to be kept in safe custody. In the complaint petition, it is mentioned that land agreed to be transferred was plot no. 212 under Khata No. 20 in - 3 - village Ladua P.S. Karpi, District – Jehanabad, but the complaint petition is conspicuously silent about the details of land which covered in the two deeds prepared. The vagueness stands in the way of the complainant informant, moreover, the document was not registered and both the parties have civil remedies since the only point for consideration is the extent of agreement between the two parties as per petitioners deeds were prepared and executed as per agreement. On the other hand, it is partly admitted by the complainant informant. 5. Since the dispute is completely of civil nature if parallel trial is proceeded, it will nothing but abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, this application stands allowed. Impugned order and the proceeding is quashed. At the same time, it is made clear that if the parties are proceeded in civil court, the competent court as per its finding, may proceed in accordance with law and the impugned order shall not stand in its way. Patna High Court Date : The 3rd August, 2010 Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) - 4 -