IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.29023 OF 2009 JAIVIND SINGH, SON OF SHRI INDRADEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF BARMA THAMAN BIGHA, POLICE STATION SHERGHATI, DISTRICT GAYA VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR WITH CR.MISC. NO.4211 OF 2009 NAZRUL HUSSAIN @ ANNU MIAN, SON OF LATE ANZAR MUSSAIN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA WHITE HOUSE COMPOUND, GAYA, POLICE STATION RAMPUR, DISTRICT GAYA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHRI DWARIKA YADAV, SON OF LATE NANHAK YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHUANWA TOLA MALIACHAK, POLICE STATION AMAS, DISTRICT GAYA …………………………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** 5 26/02/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Opposite Party No. 2 and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner Nazrul Hussain @ Annu Mian is the brother of one Auliya Khatoon. The petitioner Jaivind Singh is the son of the Manager of Nazrul Hussain. The allegations in the complaint petition are that four days prior to the lodging of the complaint, the petitioners’ entered the house where the complainant was living and running his homeopathic clinic and it is said that Jaivind Singh gave him a blow on his head with the butt of the revolver and it is further alleged that Nazrul Hussain took away Rs. 2,000/- from his pocket. Counsel for the petitioners firstly referred to the fact that the complainant had filed a basgit purcha case 2 claiming to be a privilege tenant of the lands in question appertaining to Khata no. 133 plot no. 53 measuring 12.57 acres. The said application was dismissed on 28.02.2003. Indradeo Singh, the father of Jaivind Singh has filed a complaint case No. 257 of 2002 in which the complainant is accused and in which charge sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 324, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was also taken in this case. In this background, it is submitted that the present complaint is completely false, frivolous and has been filed with malafide intention to take revenge with the petitioners and to get some advantage vis-à-vis the house in which they are living. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 submits that the complainant neither accepts that he is a tenant nor does he accepts the fact that the case is false and fabricated and infact submits that because the petitioners are stronger to him, they are trying to get advantage of their status. On perusal of the documents, it is quite clear that the complainant had failed to show himself to be a privileged tenant for the purposes of getting his name mutated or registered in the records of rights. It is also clear that the complainant is facing an eviction proceeding. The complaint has been filed on 13.06.2007 for an occurrence 3 which had taken place on 10.06.2007. The allegations that the petitioners entered into the house and assaulted the complainant appear to be obviously false in view of the background of this case and in view of the fact that there is no injury report to support the allegations. Moreover, the allegation that a man who is above 72 years of age and is a heart patient suffering from Osteoporosis would snatch Rs. 2,000/- from the pocket of the complainant is an absurd story specially in view of the fact that there is a bonafide civil dispute with respect to the said house between the parties. The allegation is more ornamental than true. In the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Kumar Das Karmarkar & Another vs. Abanidhar Roy, reported in AIR 1965 SC 585, it can safely be said that the offences under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code appears to be a frivolous one. In any event, this Court finds that the dispute arises out of the civil proceedings and as such quashed the order taking cognizance dated 09.08.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. C-284 of 2007/Trial No. 1378 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati. This application is accordingly allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)