IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21016 of 2006 KRISHNA KUMAR SHARMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 9 13.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 22.11.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Samastipur in Complaint case no. 406/04 (G.R. no.873/05) by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner only for offences punishable under sections 341 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and summons were directed to be issued to him fixing 3.1.2006 for his appearance. Opposite party no.2, Ram Balak Roy is the complainant who has lodged complaint against two named persons and 20-25 unknown persons in which petitioner is accused no.1 for offences punishable under sections 341,342,379,427,447,448 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the complainant is that he was the Manger of one Pushpa Sharma and was cultivating land in her behalf and on the date of the occurrence, he was harvesting crops of 2 Janera when several persons including petitioner reached there , took away the complainant to co-accused Krishan Kumar Sharma and after intervention of the villagers he was rescued but in the meantime accused persons had removed Janera from the land in question on tractor worth Rs 3500/. According to the complainant himself land in question along with other properties were joint properties of Babu Ram Bahadur Thakur, Babu Thakur Prasad Sharma, Babu Madan Mohan Sharma and Ram Binod Sharma as well as Babu Chatrubhuj Sharma and there was registered deed of partition between them on 9.11.1948 through which specific land were given to the share of each of the said co- sharers and land in question devolved upon Ram Binod Sharma. It is also claimed that said Ram Binod Sharma died leaving behind his mother, Smt Panwati Thakurian, his widow, Renuka Sharma and other heirs. Now the claim of the complainant is that Panwati Thakurian exchanged land in question with Pushpa Sharma who is her grand daughter from another son, where after said Pushpa Sharma came in possession of the land in question and was doing cultivation through his Manger namely, the complainant. 3 There is no material to show that after death of Ram Binod Sharma his heirs ever partitioned his land among themselves and hence a serious question arose as to how his mother Smt Panwati Thukarian exchanged his land with Pushpa Sharma completely ignoring his widow Renuka Sharma. In the aforesaid circumstances not only the question of title but also question of possession is seriously involved and prima facie it appears that Renuka Sharma and Smt. Panwati Thakurain are co-sharers along with other co- sharers and they have defined share in each of the land in question. The instant case, clearly appears to be a civil dispute which can only be settled either amicably by way of partition by metes and bounds or by way of a suit filed for the purpose before an appropriate court in which the dispute regarding title, partition, injection etc can be considered and decided. In the aforesaid circumstances, this case appears to have been filed only to settle some score and for being one- up in dispute with respect to the land in question and thus, it is clearly an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the 4 impugned order of cognizance dated 22.11.2005 passed in Complaint case no.406/04 is quashed. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)