Criminal Miscellaneous No.6577 of 1999 ---------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ---------------- 1. Saheb Singh 2. Hira Lal Singh Both sons of Late Ramjas Singh 3. Jitendra Singh, son of Chandrika Singh 4. Ramayan Singh, son of Late Sunder Singh, All are residents of Village- Balia Chain, Bhagat Ke Tola, P.S.- Maharajganj, District- Siwan 5. Amerika Singh, son of Chandra Singh, resident of village- Afrad, P.S.- Maharajganj, District Siwan ... ..... .... petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ragho Giri, son of Late Ram Shwarup Giri, resident of village- Sambhul Saraya Ke Mathia, P.S.- Gorea Kothi, District Siwan .... ... .... opposite parties ------------- For the petitioners: Mr. Udit Narain Singh, Advocate For the State: Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Sr. Advocate For the complainant: Mr. Bhuneshwar Pandey, Advocate ------------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH Shiva Kirti Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Complainant/ O.P. No.2. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 01-08-1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Siwan in case No. C 530/98 leading to Trial No. 1148/98 relating to offences under sections 323 and 379 2 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order of cognizance on a simple but effective plea that by a judgement of the Civil Court rendered after contest between the parties dated 17-3- 1997 the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and as purchasers from the ancestors of the plaintiffs, these petitioners got the benefit of such judgement and decree of the Civil Court in March, 1997 and on that basis a dispute between the parties pending under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dropped on 30-5- 1997. According to case of the petitioners after the judgement and decree of the Civil Court, on 17-5-1998 the alleged occurrence of crop cutting took place in which the complainant claimed to be in possession over the land. In substance, the point raised on behalf of the petitioners is that after a valid judgement and decree of the Civil Court there can be no room for adjudication by a criminal court as regards the possession of the petitioners in respect of same very land which was 3 subject matter of the title suit. The contention raised above has substance in law. The judgement and decree of a Civil Court is binding upon the parties and has to be respected by the criminal court. However, the said judgement is not available on record and copy of the decree merely shows that Title Suit bearing No. 196/1974 was decreed from the court of Sub Judge, V, Siwan on 17-3-1997. What were the findings given by learned Sessions Judge in respect of possession of the parties over the land involved in this case not being available before this court, it is not possible to hold one way or the other whether the particular order of cognizance under challenge should be quashed or not. If the judgement of the Civil Court would have been available and would have shown that the plaintiffs who were vendors were found in possession over the land in question then this court would have interfered and quashed the criminal proceeding. Learned counsel for the O. P. No.2 was also unable to produce a copy of the judgement of the Civil Court. However, it will not serve any useful 4 purpose to keep this matter pending and, accordingly, it is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to produce the judgement and decree of the Civil Court before the court below and pray for discharge. If the contentions noticed above advanced on behalf of the petitioners are found true by the court below after perusing the judgement and decree of the Civil Court in that case the Magistrate would be well advised to consider the prayer for discharge favorably in accordance with law. Patna High Court The 20th April, 2010 NAFR/BKS (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)