CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.29488 OF 2004 ******* ` In the matter of an application under section 482 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* 1. BIMALA DEVI, 2. BHARAT BHAGAT, 3. GANGA BISHUN BHAGAT @ GANGA BISHUN BHAKTA, 4. RAMANAND BHAGAT, 5. HARIHAR BHAGAT @ HARIHAR BHAKTA 6. SANJAY KUMAR VERMA ------------PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SRI RAMADHAR SINGH --------- OPP.PARTIES ******* For the Petitioners : Mr. Chandra Kant For the State : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, A.P.P. ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and Additional Public prosecutor for the State. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2. 2. Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners with the endorsement that learned counsel for opposite party no.2 could not be traced out inspite of best efforts taken. 2 3. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 30th July, 2004 passed in Complaint Case no. 1505 of 2003 / Trial no.1607 of 2004 passed by Sri G.C. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, taking cognizance under Sections 465, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Relevant facts of this case is that opposite party no.2 filed Complaint Case no. 999 of 2002. On basis whereof Siwan Muffasil P.S. Case no. 259 of 2002 for the offense under Sections 463, 465 and 467/34 of the Indian Penal was instituted wherein Police, after investigation, submitted final form. On the basis of protest complaint filed by the complainant matter was enquired into and by impugned order cognizance was taken. 5. The complainant opposite party no.2 came out with the case that the land under Khata no. 173, Tauzi 3894, Plot no.3237 having an area of 9 katha 16 dhurs 18 dhurkis including rasta, whereupon rasta still exists over 1 katha 16 dhurs land, fell to the share of one Chaliter Singh and it is a land now belonging to the complainant. With respect to the same accused no.1, Bimla Devi, (petitioner 3 no.1) having no right, title and interest, executed a sale deed in favour of accused 2 to 5. In a transaction accused no.6 figures as scribe. 6. It is also undisputed that with respect to such transaction one Title Suit no.12 of 2003 was also filed by the complainant and others against seven persons including the petitioner nos. 1 to 5, wherein petitioner no. 2 figures as defendant no. 1 and petitioner no.6 as defendant no.5. 7. At the time of admission of this application by order dated 08th November, 2007, after hearing both the sides, proceedings before the court below was ordered to be stayed till disposal of Title Suit no.12 of 2003 afore mentioned. 8. Petitioners have filed supplementary affidavit wherein judgment and decree of aforesaid title suit have been annexed showing that the complainant opposite party no.2 has lost his claim by the competent Civil Court, i.e. the Court of Senior Civil Judge, 8, Siwan, vide judgment dated 13th December, 2008 in Title Suit no. 12 of 2003 9. Since the complaint case has also been filed stating own right, title and interest of the complainant denying 4 of the transferor consequently transferees by virtue of sale deed in question. The disputes between the parties is nothing more than of civil nature. So initiation of Criminal case is unwarranted. Under the facts and circumstances stated above, if the impugned order is permitted to continue it shall be nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this application stands allowed and the impugned order is quashed. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) Patna High Court, The 28th July, 2010, AAhmad/(NAFR).