IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11794 of 2007 1. DIWAKAR TRIPATHI Son of Triveni Tripathi 2. Sudhakar Tripathi Son of Triveni Tripathi 3. Triveni Tripathi, Son of Late Bishwanath Tripathi 4. Munni Devi @ Munniya Devi Wife of Diwakar Tripathi All resident of Village-Khampar Tola, Nonia Chaper, P.S. Khampar, Distt- Dewaria ( U.P.) ------------------ Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Tara Devi Wife of Diwakar Tripathi, resident of Village Khampar Tola Nonia Chaper, District-Dewaria( U.P.) at Present D/O Late Bhairo Misir, resident of Village Damkuja, P.S. Bhorey, District-Gopalganj ---------------------- Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners : M/S Ram Balak Mahto,Sr.Advocate Raj Dular Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr.Binaykant Mani Tripathi,Advocate ----------- O R D E R The four persons implicated as accused in Complaint Case no.1051 of 2005 through this application have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 25.7.2006 passed therein by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj , whereby he has taken cognizance under Section 498 A I.P.C. and the consequential order dated 3.1.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Cr.Revision no.217 of 2006, whereby he has dismissed the criminal revision preferred against the order dated 25.7.2006 in limine at the admission stage. One Tara Devi , the complainant, impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2 filed the aforesaid complaint on 21.6.2005 inter alia stating that her marriage with petitioner no.1, Diwakar Tripathi, was - 2 - solemnized some 28 years ago and for the first-two years, the matrimonial life was spent in cordiality and bliss. However, it is alleged that thereafter she was subjected to harassment as she had not been able to bear a child and she was addressed to as a “Banjh”. She was also ordered to get her father’s property transferred in favour of her husband, which she refused to oblige, whereupon she was assaulted and dragged into a jeep and taken to Sisai Bazar where she was left alone, as the accused persons fled. The complainant claims to have reached her parental house where she narrated her tales of woe to her parents and neighbour. It is said that her father along with a few witnesses went to the matrimonial house to make enquiry where they were made to understand that the father should transfer all his land in the name of the accused whereupon her father returned home unsuccessful in his mission and having reached his village he transferred 2 bighas 19 dhurs of land in the name of his complainant daughter by Bakhshishnama in the year 1985, as she happened to be his only child. It is alleged that since the complainant was living with her parents, her husband in the meantime solemnized a second marriage with Munniya Devi, accused no.4. It is further alleged that when the husband got knowledge regarding the transfer of the land in her favour , he developed greedy eyes for the same and by playing fraud took the complainant back to the marital home and having locked her in a room he made Munniya Devi impersonate as the complainant and got transferred all the lands given to her by Bakhshishnama in his name by means of a fraudulent deed executed - 3 - on 26.5.1994 . It is alleged that after two years she was again turned out from the matrimonial house and all her belongings were confiscated by the petitioners. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that one Lali Devi, mother of the complainant, had filed a Title Suit no.21 of 1996 against Tara Devi, the complainant, petitioner no.1 and others stating therein that some lands were registered in their names and the same was dismissed by order dated 2.12.2003. It is also submitted that Case no.314 of 1999 was filed before the Munsif, Gopalganj by Lali Devi against the complainant , petitioner no.1 and other family members of the petitioners, in which it was admitted that some lands were executed through Bakhshishnama on 5.7.1985 in favour of Tara Devi by her father, which was later on transferred in the name of petitioner no.1 through registered sale deed by the present complainant, which only goes to show that the allegation as per complaint petition that petitioner no.1 had got the said land transferred by fraud was absolutely false. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that at the time of mutation of the land in question, notices were issued upon the parties to raise objections, if any, but no objection as such was raised. In this connection, it was submitted that as a matter of fact, it was the Opp.Party no.2, who had registered his land in favour of petitioner no.1 by putting her signature and thumb impression. The learned counsel for the petitioners further sought to bring to my notice the fact that the complainant was living separately - 4 - from petitioner no.1 since long and as it appears from the number of litigations inter se that the present case has been filed by instigation of her present husband only to harass the petitioners unnecessarily. The further submission was that since the complainant and petitioner no.1 were living separate for a long period of time, no case under Section 498 A I.P.C. can be said to have been made out. Although the complainant-Opp.party no.2 has appeared by filing Vakalatnama, but no show cause/counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. From a plain understanding of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that their grievance is over the prolonged delay in filing the complaint case and effort to prove that the lands in question were validly and legally transferred in the name of petitioner no.1. The bonafide of such transfer cannot be judged in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has to be proved at a full fledged trial by leading cogent evidence in that regard. As held in the case of Kamladevi Agrawal Vrs.West Bengal, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 655, criminal proceeding cannot be thwarted at the initial stage merely because civil proceedings are also pending.. Criminal cases have to be proceeded in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings. The nature and scope of civil and criminal proceedings and the standard of proof required in both matters is different and distinct. Whereas in civil proceeding, the - 5 - matter can be decided on the basis of probabilities, the criminal case has to be decided by adopting the standard of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt”. The revisional or inherent power of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the F.I.R, even if taken on their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. So far as the question of delay in filing of the complaint is concerned , that is a relative issue , which again can be sorted out in the trial itself, because that again would require a leading of cogent evidence for or against the allegations. Due regard being had to the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs I am not inclined at this stage to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, I find no merit in this application, which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court, Patna Dated : the 20th February,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.