IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8064 of 2008 SUNIL PRASAD @ GANESH PRASAD SON OF LATE JAGANNATH PRASAD, RESIDING AT ALANKAR JWELLERS & SONS, ASHOK RAJPATH, POLICE STATION PIRBAHOR TOWN & DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DILIP KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SHREE DAMODAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF SURYALOK APARTMENT, 402, BUDDHA COLONY, POLICE STATION BUDDHA COLONY, TOWN & DISTRICT PATNA. ----------- For petitioner : M/S Abhay Kumar & Rajnish Ranjan, Advoccates. For Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Jhakhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. --- 4/ 21.05.2010 Heard. 2. This is an application for quashing the order dated 14.01.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2431(c) of 2007 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 323, 452, 427, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint is that the complainant at the initial stage gave Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac ) to the accused as surety money for starting a restaurant and accused no.1 has impressed him that he will return the amount after expiry of tenancy period. It is alleged that the complainant used to give Rs. 4,000/- per month as rent to the accused persons but the accused person did not give any receipt to - 2 - the complainant. It has further been alleged that on 22.08.2007 at 8.30 P.M. the accused persons along with four unknown persons entered in the restaurant and having abused him, threatened to vacate the restaurant within five days. The complainant asked the accused persons not to abuse him at which accused Sunil Prasad @ Ganesh Prasad,( petitioner) gave one slap on his neck. Thereafter the accused persons damaged one table causing loss of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant informed the police about the said occurrence but the police refused to lodge the F.I.R. saying that it is a case of landlord and tenant hence this matter may be brought to the Court and as such the present complaint has been filed. Learned court below examined the complainant and his witnesses and after hearing them, took cognizance under section 323, 452 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is landlord of Opposite party no.2 and the shop of the petitioner is situated in the said restaurant. It is submitted that the petitioner is a businessman. He has neither threatened the complainant nor abused and slapped him but only with an intention to harass him, the present complaint case has been filed by the complainant. - 3 - However, as per the complaint the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 22.08.2007 at 8.30 P.M. which is a pick hour but there is no mention that the accused persons had tried to evict the complainant and the only allegation is that they slapped him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that since there is relationship of landlord and tenant and it is submitted that the petitioner has already been filed in the court below, the court below shall decide the matter, though there is allegation that the accused persons had only slapped the complainant. However, at this stage I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned. The petitioner is dismissed. However, the petitioner may raise his grievance after framing of the charge. ( Gopal Prasad, J ) BTiwary/