CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.879 OF 2005 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) 1.NARENDRA BAHADUR SINGH, Son of Late Shiv Kalash Singh 2.GOBARDHAN SINGH, Son of Bishun Pujan Singh 3.KAMESHWAR SINGH, Son of Late Shiv Kailash Singh 4.RAMESHWAR SINGH, Son of Late Shiv Kailash Singh 5.BINOD KUMAR SINGH @ BINOD SINGH, Son of Shiv Pujan Singh All Resident of Village Dughara, Police Station Mohania, District Kaimur at Bhabhua. ……….Petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.BECHAN SINGH, Son of Late Ram Brich Singh Resident of village Dughara, Police Station Mohania, District Kaimur at Bhabhua. ……..Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Bani S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Damodar Prasad Sinha, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Vinod Kumar Seth, Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Vinod Kumar Seth for the complainant-opposite party no. 2. 2. During course of arguments on behalf of the petitioners, Xerox copy of supplementary affidavit said to have been filed earlier, containing copy of statement of the witnesses and order of the trial court dated 20.5.2004 deciding to proceed with the trial for the offences under - 2 - Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, exonerating for other offence complained of and another supplementary affidavit filed today, enclosing copy of judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 192 of 1998 by the Court of IInd Sub-Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua to state that between the parties with respect to same transactions civil suit has been decided in favour of the petitioner i.e. the vendee. 3. This case has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 11.11.2004 passed by Sri Jagannath Ram, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Bhabua in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2004 confirming order of the trial court dated 20.05.2004 passed in Complaint Case No. 454 of 1998. 4. Admittedly, one Bechan Singh, opposite party no. 2 lodged Complaint Case No. 454 of 1998 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua on 18.07.1998 against altogether eight persons, including five petitioners with an assertion that the complainant is a physically disabled illiterate person and his elder brother Rajgrihi Singh, deceased was earlier taking care of the lands - 3 - of the two brothers and subsequent to his death six sons of deceased brother are managing the affairs for last fifteen- sixteen years. The complainant left the village for Ayodhya, where started living with one Mahant Ram Mohan Das, his nephews were funding him and whenever there was any occasion both the sides visit each other, reference has been given of one visit of complainant for mortgaging some joint land with the bank to purchase tractor. It is further alleged that in the month of October 1997, petitioner no. 2 and one Birendra Singh, non-petitioner (accused at serial no. 4 in the complaint petition) at Ayodhya Math, informed the complainant i.e. his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) is ill and has called him, he left the Math with the two, in the way petitioner no. 1, 2 & 3 joined the company and all the six arrived at Mohania by train, the complainant was kept at some unknown place and all the accused persons named started threatening. On queries about his Bhabhi, petitioner no. 3 assured meeting within four-five days, thereafter, all the accused persons with their associates not the complainant reached to sasaram at the residence of a lawyer and kept him here and there for several months, by way of - 4 - threatening to dance at their tunes. 5. Ten-eleven days, thereafter, the complainant was brought to registry office where his L.T.I. etc. were obtained on different papers and receipts etc. was returned without being produced before the Registrar. For five-six months, the complainant was kept in the custody of the accused persons here and there and again in similar fashion brought to registry office, where similar things were done again. It is said that every ten-twelve days before the accused persons got him before an officer under threats and got a statement made that he was not abducting and has transferred his lands to them. After doing all these things the accused persons brought him to Banaras, seven-eight days thereafter and paid Rs. 500/- with this information that he had made statement before Superintendent of Police and if any case is being instituted, he will be killed. 6. It is also stated that during captivity, the petitioner was informed that a sum of Rs. 1,14,000/- with three drafts have been deposited in his bank account but subsequently the accused persons got the amount withdrawn, paid nothing to him, the reason behind all such - 5 - episode as stated is a case filed at the instance of nephew of the complainant Durga Shankar Singh against the accused persons for removal encroachment over the government land. The complainant also came to know that the accused persons have also stolen one motor belonging to the complainant, which has been recovered by the police in case which is going on. 7. On receipt of the complaint, some witnesses were examined, during enquiry cognizance was taken and on appearance hearing on the point of charge after recording statements of some witnesses before charge was done before the trial court displayed the story of abduction etc. and only decided to proceed for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 420 & 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 8. It would not be out of place to mention that from the complaint petition, it appears that all the allegations leveled against the eight accused persons named in the complaint are one and similar, but the complainant got the case compromised with three of the accused persons, namely, Birendra Singh, Awadhesh Singh and Surendra Singh, on basis thereof they have been exonerated. - 6 - 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that against order of cognizance taken by the court below one Cr. Miscellaneous No. 6103 of 2003 was preferred before this court, but vide order dated 13.10.2003, the same was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to raise all the points at the time of framing of the charge. The learned counsel further submitted that the entire case is absurd and only at the instance of some names, the case appears to have been lodged after executing sale deeds for consideration and the dispute, if any between the parties is of civil nature for which Title Suit No. 192 of 1998 was also filed by the complainant before the court of IInd Sub-Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua and it has been now dismissed on full contest. 10. The learned counsel representing the opposite parties, while supporting the impugned order submitted that there is specific allegation against the accused persons and at this stage, no interference is required. 11. From the bare reading of the complaint petition, it appears that the complainant has alleged the - 7 - abduction and being kept in captivity for several months, during which at two occasions intervening by five-six months, he was brought to registry office, where on several papers his L.T.I. etc. was obtained, but without producing him before Registrar, he was brought back. It is also stated that consideration was paid through Bank Drafts in his account, the amount was subsequently got withdrawn and spent by the accused persons. It is difficult to accept that the persons abducting the complainant for the purpose of getting some sale deeds executed in their favour by him, shall not do the same at one and single occasion, but it will be done at two different occasions with interval of several months and during the period executants shall not only be paid the consideration through Bank Draft, but provided all assistance and under grave risks. The abductors shall keep the complainant for several months. Learned counsel representing the opposite party were put to this question, but no reply could be given in the complaint case appears containing absurd statements. 12. So far, proceeding of trial for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 420 & 120(B) of the Indian Penal - 8 - Code, the facts and circumstances as narrated indicated that the dispute, if any is of civil nature with respect to the sale deeds said to have been executed by the complainant in favour of the accused persons and as it has brought on the record by way of supplementary affidavit that complainant had also filed Civil Suit bearing no. 192 of 1998, which has been dismissed on contest. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above and finding the dispute of civil nature, even ignoring the decision of the Civil Court, which may be subject to decision of appeal, if filed, any further continuation of the proceeding before the court below shall nothing, but abuse of process of law, and sheer wastage of precious judicial time. 14. On the basis of the above findings arrived at, this application stands allowed, impugned order is hereby quashed to the extent proceeding with the trial for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 420 & 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Patna High Court Date : 10th August, 2010 Praveen/-. (Akhilesh Chandra.J.) - 9 -