IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53992 of 2007 1. Anjani Kumar Sinha. 2. Pradeep Kumar Singh, both sons of Late Krishna Narayan Prasad. 3. Manju Sinha, Wife of Anjani Kumar Sinha. 4. Mala Sinha, wife of Pradeep Kumar Sinha. All the above named petitioners no. 1 to 4, resident of Deoghar, V.I.P. Chowk, P.S.Barmasia, District-Deoghar, at present of Village-Lathane, P.S. Chandan, District-Banka. 5. Bhagwan Jha, son of Late Hari Jha. 6. Bijay Jha, Son of Bhagwan Jha. 7. Nepali Jha, Son of Bhuneshwar Jha. All the above named petitioners no. 5 to 7, residents of Village- Lathane, P.S. Chandan, District-Banka......................Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Jai Prakash Yadav, S/O Late Radhe Yadav, R/O Lathane, Thana- Chandan, Anchal(P.S.) P.O. Chandan, District-Banka.. ......................Opposite parties. ----------- For the petitioners: Ms. Parul Ranjan, Advocate. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. ---------- 6. 19.03.2010. The present application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 08.09.2006/11.09.2006 including its entire criminal proceeding in complaint case no. 825 of 2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka, in which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 144, 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard learned counsel on behalf of seven petitioners as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and also Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta on behalf 2 of the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the occurrence alleged to have been committed on plot no. 439, 140 and 146 part of which is an orchard. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that allegations of plucking of Mangoes, taking away and abusing are absolutely frivolous since the land in question belongs to the accused side which is apparent from the decree in partition suit no. 30 of 1981. Apart from that the petitioners have brought on record Annexure-4 series, the rent receipts in favour of petitioners dated 31.03.1994, 21.01.1998 as well as 11.06.2003. The petitioners further claim that the land in question by virtue of the certificate dated 27.05.1994 issued by the Circle Officer, Chandan, whereby the Circle Officer, Chandan, certified that the land in question belongs to the petitioners side and they have the right to plant trees and to cut it. The other document on which the learned counsel for the petitioners relied is Annexure-5, the order of the learned D.C.L.R. Banka, dated 17.1.2003 in 3 Mutation Appeal Case No. 14 of 2001-02 whereby the learned D.C.L.R.Banka, set aside the order of mutation made in favour of the complainant. The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present criminal case has been lodged as a pressure tactics and moreover the occurrence is alleged to have been taken place on 16.06.2006 at 11.00 A.M. whereas the complaint was filed on 26.06.2006 after ten days of the occurrence. Controverting the claim of the petitioners the counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the land in question was settled to him by ex landlord and subsequently the ex-landlord filed the return in his name at the time of vesting Zamindari and consequent to that the State of Bihar issued the rent receipts in his favour and his name has entered into the Khatian. The other contention of learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is that so far as the order contained in Annexure-5 passed by the learned D.C.L.R.Banka, in favour of the petitioners is concerned, it has been 4 challenged before the learned Collector and the learned Collector has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned D.C.L.R. and the current rent receipts are in favour of the opposite party No.2. Though the opposite party No.2 has not brought on record the order of learned Collector but the photo copy of the order dated 19.05.2003 passed in Case No. 212 of 2003 has been shown to me from which it appears that the notices have been issued and the records have been called for. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this fact is admitted that there is bonafide land dispute over the land in question and the occurrence is alleged to have been taken place on 16.06.2006 whereas the complaint has been filed on 26.06.2006 after 10 days of the occurrence which creates doubt about the bonafide of the case. After perusing the records and hearing the rival contention of the parties it appears that the case has been lodged as device to settle the civil dispute through the criminal process of law which has been deprecated by Hon’ble Apex Court in the 5 case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others reported 2006(6) S.C. 736. Hence, considering the civil nature of the dispute and the delay in lodging the F.I.R., I do hereby quash the order of cognizance dated 08.09.2006/11.09.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Banka, including entire proceeding of complaint case no. 825 of 2006. This application is, accordingly, allowed. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)