CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20140 OF 2000 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- 1. RAM HARKH RAM SON OF RAM NATH RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARWAKHURD, POLICE STATION LOKARIYA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 2. LOKENDRA MAHTO, SON OF MOTI MAHTO. 3. HARI BHUEYA @ BARA HARI MUSHAHAR, SON OF THAGAI BHUEYA. 4. TETAR MUSHAHAR @ TETAR BHUIHEYA, SON OF JOHAR MUSHAHAR. 5. HEMRAJ MAHTO @ HEMRAJ KAJI, SON OF HARI NARAIN KAJI. 6. TILAK MAHTO, SON OF LATE KALMI MAHTO. 7. KHUBLAL KHATAIT, SON OF MANI KHATAIT. 8. CHULHAI KAJI, SON OF BAHIDAR KAJI. 9. BINDESHWARI MUSHAHAR SON OF THAGAI MUSHAHAR. 10. HARI DHANGAR SON OF NATHUNI DHANGAR. 11. MOHAR MUSHAHAR SON OF HIRA MUSHAHAR 12. KRISHNA MAHTO SON OF PAGAN MAHTO 13. DAYANAND DEWEDI, SON OF SACHIDANAND DUBEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MATKHAULI, PATKHAULI, POLICE STATION BAGHA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 14. HARENDRA THAKUR, SON OF LATE SATAN THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANJHOUBA, POLICE STATION LOKARIYA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. SL.NO. 2 TO 13 ALL RESIDENT OF BARWA KHURD, POLICE STATION LAKORIYA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DINANATH MISHRA SON OF SUDHISHTHA MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARWAKHURD, POLICE STATION LOKARIYA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : M/S Ashwani Kumar Singh, Sr.Adv. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. Fourteen petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under 2 Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 20.6.2000 passed in T.R. Case No.585 of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bagha (West Champaran). By the said order, the learned Magistrate had rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners. 2. Short fact of the case is that one Dinanath Mishra, who was caretaker of one Shri Indrajeet Vikram Sah, gave his fardbeyan to the police alleging therein that while he was in the field of his landlord, about 100- 150 accused persons variously armed visited the field of the landlord of the complainant and forcibly cut the crops and looted the same. It was alleged that in the occurrence, the landlord of the informant had suffered a loss of about Rs.40,000/-, which was the cost of the crop. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, an F.I.R. vide Bagha P.S. Case No.59 of 1994 was registered on 11.11.1994 and F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Sections 144 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet and at the stage of 3 charge, a discharge petition was filed by the petitioners and by the impugned order i.e. by order dated 20.6.2000, the learned Magistrate rejected the discharge petition. 3. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition and on 20.8.2001, the petition was admitted for hearing and the court directed for issuance of notice to opposite party no.2. In the meanwhile, it was directed that further proceeding in Tr. Case No.585 of 2000 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bagha (West Champaran) as against the petitioners shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. 4. In this case, despite issuance of notice to opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.2 has not preferred to appear and as such in absence of opposite party no.2, the matter was heard. 5. Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has argued that the case was falsely instituted as per the instance of the 4 landlord of the informant, whose land was already declared as surplus and long back in the year 1987-88, for said land, purchas were issued in favour of about 131 landless persons which include the petitioners or their relatives. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further referred to Annexure- 4 to the petition, which is a report, prepared by the police on 29.3.1995, wherein it was reported that the land in question was actually distributed to the landless persons. The said report was prepared in relation to a proceeding initiated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the land, which was alleged as the land of the landlord of the informant, was actually lands, which were distributed to the petitioners and as such it was submitted that it was hardly a case of land dispute for which the petitioners cannot be prosecuted. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the learned Magistrate, without examining materials, which were brought by the petitioners, in a mechanical manner, has passed the impugned order, whereby discharge 5 petition of the petitioners were rejected. Accordingly, it has been prayed that order dated 20.6.2000 is liable to be set aside. 6. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It was submitted that it was an apparent case of loot committed by the petitioners and others and as such the petition may be rejected. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and State, I have also perused the materials available on record. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate, while hearing the discharge petition, was required to ascertain as to whether purchas in relation to the land in question was actually issued to the petitioners or their relatives or not. The record shows that the claim of the petitioners regarding the issuance of purchas in their favour has got substance and force. Moreover, the report, which has been annexed as Annexure-4, also indicates that the land, 6 which was claimed by the landlord of informant, was a disputed land. 9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as pendency of the case for such a long time, that too, without any progress, this Court is of the opinion that allowing the proceeding to proceed further, will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the court. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 20.6.2000 passed by Shri K. Dinesh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bagha (West Champaran) in T.R. No.585 of 2000 is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 28.7.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.