IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52296 of 2007 1. RAM SANEHI SINGH , Son of Dharamdeo Singh, 2. Sheojee Singh, Son of Baban Singh, Both residence of village-Jogni, P.S. Dawath, Distt-Rohtas ------------------ Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Lali Kunwar, wife of Late Ram Bachan Dubey, residence of Village- Jogni, P.S. Dawath, District-Rohtas -------------------- Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Maya Nand Jha, A.P.P. For the Opp.Party no.2 : None. ------------ O R D E R 4 4-02-2009 The two persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case no.209 of 2006 have filed this application with a prayer to quash the order dated 6.8.2007 passed by Sri Ram Chandra Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikramganj, whereby he has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 420,467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. One Lali Kunwar , the wife of late Ram Bachan Dubey, the complainant, impleaded as Opp.Party no.2 herein, filed the aforesaid complaint on 9.5.2006 inter alia alleging therein that the accused persons had sent a legal notice upon her on the basis of a Mahadnama dated 22.12.2004 , which allegedly had been prepared fraudulently. After receiving the notice dated 22.12.2005, she came to know of Mahadnama and claimed that it was forged and did not bear her signature. She also claimed that the stamps were purchased in the name of one Dipkalo Kunwar and petitioner no.2 had identified her as the deponent. It was further alleged in the complaint that neither did she execute the Mahadnama nor did she - 2 - receive any consideration for the same. On the aforesaid premise it was claimed that with a view to grab her property illegally a forged Mahadnama had been prepared. It appears that the complainant was examined on S.A. wherein she stated that she had neither purchased the paper for the Mahadnama nor she had gone to Bikramganj on 22.12.2004 nor had she signed on any paper on that day. She also claimed that since she did not receive any consideration, there was no question of executing the Mahadnama . It further appears that one Kunj Bihari Dubey , her Samadhi , was examined as a witness of the complainant and he in his deposition claimed that he had seen the complainant and the accused persons at Bikramganj and that Lali Kunwar had executed the Mahadnama . He also alleged that petitioner no.1 had allegedly prepared the Mahadnama by fraud. Two other witnesses, namely, Amrendra Dubey , son of the complainant, and Ajay Kumar Dubey, the servant of the complainant, were also examined and on the basis of their evidence , the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 6.8.2007. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant to put pressure upon petitioner no.1 to withdraw the Title Suit No.43 of 2006 pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge -Ist, Sasaram for specific performance of contract. In this connection it was submitted that the husband of the complainant, Ram Bachan Dubey, a co-villager of the deceased, had two wives, namely, Dipkalo Devi and Lali Kunwar, both wives lived together with the husband and subsequently upon the death of the husband, the complainant who is a clever lady took Dipkalo Devi in her confidence and they started selling the - 3 - property inherited by them through their deceased husband who had left around 40-45 bighas of land. Subsequently, Dipkalo Devi and Lali Kunwar partitioned amongst themselves vide Case No.380(d) of 2002 on the basis of compromise before Lok Adalat at Sasaram and each of them were granted ½ share each. It is further submitted that following the compromise decree , Opp.Party no.2 asked petitioner no.1 to purchase 1.67 acres of land appertaining to plot no.2273, 0.62 acres appertaining to plot no.5850, 1.08 acres appertaining to plot no.2179 and 0.86 acres appertaining to plot no.5856, a total of 4.23 acres of land and after negotiation the consideration was fixed at Rs.5.40 Lacs. Petitioner no.1 asked his son Kamakhya Narain Singh who is serving in the Army and was posted at Jabalpur to arrange money of Rs.2 Lacs for making advance payment to the complainant and, accordingly, a draft was prepared which was handed over by petitioner no.1 to the complainant and in pursuance thereof a Mahadnama was executed wherein she accepted having received the amount. In terms of the Mahadnama , it was agreed that the entire consideration money would be paid by 23.12.2003 whereafter the complainant would execute the sale deed. Since the complainant did not carry out her part of the contract, petitioner no.1 was compelled to send the legal notice. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that when a Title Suit in respect of the same lands had been filed for specific performance of contract, there was no scope for supplementing the same with criminal prosecution and the continuance of criminal prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Though notice was validly served on Opp.Party no.2, she for the - 4 - reasons best known to her refrained from appearing in the instant case and contests the same. Therefore, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners remained unrebutted. Even otherwise, the continuance of a criminal proceeding during the pendency of a civil suit for specific performance of contract would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Since it was open to both the parties to re-agitate their respective grievances in the civil suit itself to criminal proceeding to put pressure to compromise the civil suit or for the complainant to bow down to the wishes of the defendant has been times without number been deprecated by the Apex Court as also this Court. In several cases, the Apex Court as also this Court have categorically deprecated the present day tendency of filing criminal litigation to put pressure on the civil cases which usually take long time to be disposed of and get an early settlement through criminal litigation.. Be that as it may, the prosecution of the petitioners in the instant case, in the facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be an abuse of the process of the court which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance is hereby quashed and the application so far as the petitioners are concerned is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-