IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47721 of 2007 VIJAY KUMAR JHA, SON OF JAGANNATH JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-HARIHARPUR, P.S. KAMTAUL, DISTRICT DARBHANGA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT G.M.ROAD, P.S. L.N.M.U. DISTT. DARBHANGA. …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. HARISHCHANDRA MISHRA SON OF LATE RAM ANURADHA MISHRA, EX-ARMY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHANUTA, P.S. BISTI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT G.M.ROAD, P.S. L.N.M.U. DISTRICT DARBHANGA …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 03. 22.03.2010 The petitioner, who is an accused of Darbhanga Town P.S.Case No.161/2002(Tr. No.608/04), seeks to challenge the order dated 17.01.2004, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga whereby cognizance of the offence has been taken against the accused persons cited in the charge-sheet including the petitioner herein under diverse sections including sections 420,467,471 and 120(b) IPC. As per the prosecution case, the informant negotiated and purchased a piece of land from the petitioner and other accused persons described in the FIR itself for a consideration of Rs. 1,65,000/-. The seller of the land is accused Shashi Bhushan. It is the prosecution case that this petitioner acted as a middleman and subsequently also became an attesting witness to the execution of the sale-deed. The informant faced with certain difficulties in getting the land in question mutated in the name of his wife, approached the accused persons and demanded back the amount with interest which was refused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that going by the allegations, it would appear that the dispute is purely civil in nature. - 2 - He drew the attention of the Court to the order dated 24.05.2007 (Annexure-2), passed in Cr.Misc. No. 30153 of 2006(Shashi Bhushan Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Ors), whereby a Bench of this Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, found and held that the allegations pristinely constitute a civil dispute and, as such, the prosecution of the accused persons shall be sheer misuse of the process of the Court. Although notices were issued to the opposite party no.2, but nobody has appeared to oppose the prayer. Mr. Jha, learned APP, is not able to differentiate the case of the present petitioner with that of the co-accused Shashi Bhushan Singh. In these circumstances, this Court is persuaded to quash the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence dated 17.01.2004. The application is accordingly allowed and the order dated 17.01.2004 is quashed and set aside. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )