IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13157 of 2007 RAJDEO PATHAK & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 9.9.2008. Heard Sri Binay Kant Mani Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhayay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although O.P. No.2, the complainant, was duly served with notice, he has chosen not to appear to contest this application. Through this application the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 30.6.2006 passed by Sri V.K. Srivastava, the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Siwan, in Criminal Revision No.201 of 2003/13 of 2005, whereby he has dismissed the revision challenging the order dated 5.8.2003, passed by Sri P.K. Ojha, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siwan, in Trial No.1091 of 2003 arising out of the complaint petition filed by Opposite Party No.2 under Sections 467, 471, 420 and 120-B I.P.C. The complaint filed by O.P. No.2 was referred to the concerned police station by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and when the police failed to submit any report in this case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, transferred the case under Section 192(2) Cr.P.C. to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siwan, after taking cognizance on 9.2.1994 It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that from the evidence as also the complaint petition itself, no case is made out against the petitioners and it has been instituted with the sole purpose of harassing them. It has further been submitted that Opposite Party No.2 had - 2 - also filed Title Suit No.273 of 1984 which was decreed in her favour vide judgment and order dated 20.8.1988 passed by the Sub Judge-I, Siwan and against the same judgment and order petitioner no.1 had filed Title Appeal No.1 of 1989 in the court of District Judge, Siwan, which is pending. On this premise, it has been submitted that since the matter is subjudiced before a competent court, the present criminal case was not maintainable. It is also the grievance of the petitioners that the original complaint petition had been lost and a typed copy thereof was filed by the complainant on 17.1.2000 to which the petitioners raised objections and claimed the same to be dismissed. With the complainant, O.P. No.2 choosing not to appear, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner remains unrebutted moreso because the nature of allegations made in the complaint petition reminds one of the trappings of a civil dispute and no criminal liability can be fixed on the petitioners. It is unfortunate that a complaint petition filed in the year 1983 has been kept pending for almost 23 years which does not auger well both for the complainant as also the court. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the continuance of the proceeding, so far as the petitioners are concerned, would be an abuse of the process of the court and is required to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order passed in criminal revision refusing to discharge the petitioners is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)