IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.11545 of 2009 1.Md.Manjoor , S/o Late Md. Safeek 2. Md. Mumtaz S/o Late Md. Momin 3. Sekh Daud, S/o Late Sekh Bhikhari 4. Md. Imam, S/o Md. Kalam All residents of village-Mahima Gopinathpur (Mahua Tarn), P.S. Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur 5. Ram Pravesh Singh, S/o Late Khobhari Singh Resident of village-Panapur Chapra, P.S. Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur. 6. Md. Rahamtullah, S/o Late Darbara, Resident of village- Bahuara, P.S. Kanti, District-Muzaffarpur. 7. Md. Nurul, S/o Md. Nabu Jan Resident of Mohalla- Brahmpura (Lakshmi Chowk), P.S. Brahmpura, District- Muzaffarpur. 8. Abdul Kalam, S/o Mohammadin, Resident of Mohalla- Rampurgan, P.S. Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur ………… ……. Petitioners. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2. Md. Maksood, S/o Late Md. Safeek, Resident of village- Mahima Gopinathpur (Mahua Tara) P.S. Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur …….. Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 5 12-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 as also learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioners while invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court vested under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C., have prayed for quashing the order dated 07-08-2008 passed by Sri A. K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, (West), Muzaffarpur - 2 - in Complaint Case No. C 430 of 2008 corresponding to Trial No. 3858 of 2008 whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate having found prima facie case under Sections-147 & 436 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, ordered to issue summons to procure their attendance for facing trial. It is gathered from the record that opposite party No. 2, namely, Md Maksud filed Complaint Case No. C 430 of 2008 before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (West), Muzaffarpur against the petitioners and two others for the occurrence dated 03-04-2008 alleging therein that on 03-04-2008 at about 3.00 p.m. petitioners and other accused set his house on fire. The aforesaid Complaint Case was filed on 10-04-2008. The aforesaid complaint case was inquired by learned court below under Section-202 of the Cr.P.C. and in course of inquiry, a report was also called for, from the concerned police station and the S.I. of concerned police station reported this fact that the complainant had set the house of petitioner No. 1 on fire as a result of which, the fire also caught the houses of complainant and others. It is further gathered from the impugned order that having considered the materials available on the record, learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class (West Muzaffarpur) passed the impugned order dated 07-08-2008 against which this quashing petition has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as a matter of fact, on the alleged date of - 3 - occurrence, the complainant and his associates set the house of petitioner No. 1 on fire on account of land dispute for which the petitioner No. 1 lodged Motipur P.S. Case No. 49 of 2008 against the complainant and others on the same date, i.e. on 03-04-2008 and the complainant filed the above-said complaint case after seven days of the alleged occurrence with a view to save his skin from the above-said Motipur P.S. Case No. 49 of 2008. He also drew my attention towards Annexure-3 to this petition and pointed out that when learned Judicial Magistrate called for a report in Complaint Case No. C 430 of 2008 from the police, the S.I. of concerned police station visited the place of occurrence and specifically reported that it was the complainant himself who had set the house of petitioner No. 1 on fire and accidentally fire engulfed the house of the complainant. On the otherhand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 submits that learned court below has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no need for this court to interfere with the impugned order at least, at this stage because both the parties have filed cases against each other and which of the parties is correct, is to be decided in course of trial. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 also points out that the trial in Complaint Case No. C 430 of 2008 has already commenced and one witness has also been - 4 - examined, so it would not be proper for this court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Section -482 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Mayanand Jha appearing for the state echoed the submission advanced on behalf of opposite party No. 2. Having heard the contention of both the parties, I have gone through the record. In my view, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 has rightly submitted that it is not a proper stage for this court to exercise its power vested under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the petitioners have sought for the prayer for quashing the impugned order on the ground of filing of Motipur P.S. Case No. 49 of 2008 as well as land dispute but in my view, it is not proper stage to give any finding in respect of correctness of the above-stated case because both the parties are making allegations against each others. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Cr. Misc. petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. AKV/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)