IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44899 of 2006 1. Narayan Prasad , s/o Late Jagadeo Prasad, 2. Malti Devi, W/o Narayan Prasad, Both are resident of Village- Narainpur, P.S.- Bagaha, Distt- West Champaran --------------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Deo Narain Singh, S/o Late Ram Ayodhya Singh, resident of Village-Narainpur, P.S. Bagaha, District-West Champaran ------------------------------- Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners : M/s Manan Kr. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, and Awanish Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. A.H.M. Rahman, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr. S.N.P.Sinha, Sr. Advocate. -------------- O R D E R Two of the persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case no.835(C) of 2003 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 29.10.2003 passed therein by Sri R.C. Sahni, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bagaha, whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 193, 200, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. against all the seven accused named in the complaint petition including the petitioners. The complainant, Deo Narayan Singh, impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2, filed the aforesaid complaint case inter alia alleging that 3 kathas of land appertaining to khata no.2, khesra no.74/25 was settled in the name of his father in the year 1950 and in the same year one Ramjee Pathak got settlement of two kathas , one Kedar Pathak got three kathas and one Balkhandi Sah got settled two kathas land from Bettiah Raj and out of the same khesra 4 kathas and 8 dhurs - 2 - lands remained unsettled . It is said that in the year ,1971 the father of the complainant sold two kathas land out of the said lands from the western side to one Ram Murat Singh and the remaining one katha land remained in possession of the father of the complainant. The further allegation is that the petitioners have committed forgery in the sale deeds as also in the original map of the land in question in collusion with the other co-accused with a view to grab the remaining lands of the complainant. It has also been alleged that the accused persons in collusion with the police forcibly put boundary wall on 22.6.2001 including 16 dhurs land of the complainant and for this the complainant has had to file Title Suit No.33 of 2001 . It is further alleged that the accused have committed forgery in Mutation Case no.213 of Register 2 by cutting with pen in the register. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that with the pendency of Title Suit No.33 of 2001 filed by Opp.Party no.2 against these two petitioners the title of Opp.Party no.2 still remains to be adjudicated and the veracity of the sale deed in favour of the petitioners is still to be decided in the Title Suit. The petitioners claim to be in lawful possession over the lands in question and even as the matter was pending adjudication before the competent court the present complaint has been filed to put undue pressure on the petitioners. It was also submitted that the complainant had filed an injunction petition in Title Suit No.33 of 2001 which was refused on the ground that the complainant did not have a prima facie case. It is also the submission of the petitioners that the witnesses examined by - 3 - the learned Magistrate had given self-contradictory statement which completely falsifies the complainant’s case but the Magistrate had ignored this aspect of the matter. On the contrary, the submission on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 is that all those points raised by the petitioners were earlier raised by two of the co-accused, namely, Dwijendra Nath Mishra and Dodha Prasad in Cr.Misc.No.4962 of 2004 which was dismissed by a Bench of this Court by order dated 21.4.2006. The issues of pendency of Title Suit, the non-application of Section 420 I.P.C. and cognizance under Sections 193, 200, 471 I.P.C. could not be taken in absence of a complaint by the court in view of Section 195 (1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. were all considered by that Bench and answered against the petitioners. In effect the very question of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance has been upheld by a Bench of this Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. preferred by some of the co- accused .In the circumstances a contrary view by another bench in another application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. preferred by some of the other accused is neither warranted nor called for. Accordingly, there is no merit in this application which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 1st of May,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.