IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3998 of 2009 1. Dhananjay Pandey, son of Kedar Nath Pandey. 2. Baisam Pandey, son of Nageshwar Pandey. 3. Shiva Kant Pandey, son of Late Balewshwar Pandey. 4. Deobart Pandey, son of Baisam Pandey. 5. Ved Prakash Pandey, son of Baisam Pandey. Above all are resident of Mohalla- Choto Brahampur Toli, P.O. - Chapra, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran. …..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Krishna Ballabh, Brahaman Toli, P.O.-Chapra, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran. …..Opposite Parties. For the petitioners :- Dr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. A. M. P. Mehta, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 03.12.2010. Heard. This criminal miscellaneous petition is for quashing the order dated 21. 11. 2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chapra, in Tr. No. 3210/2008 arising out of Complaint Case No. 2711/2008 in which cognizance has been taken under Section 182 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution as alleged is a land dispute between the parties and there was proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and it is alleged that accused persons have demolished the tile roof bring in collusion the Bhagwan Bazar Police and are claiming the land belongs to them. It is alleged that accused persons gave some papers with regard to the dalan portion being that belong to them. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners has however, stated that with regard to the same land a civil suit filed by the complainant with regard to Plot Nos. 1031 and 1032. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that allegation itself in the complaint petition that on bringing the Police in collusion the roof was demolished and even papers were shown to the Police claiming the land belongs to the accused persons and hence it is alleged that wrong information was given to the police. However, to decide both the questions arise whether accused persons or the complainant who is owner of the land and hence apparently it is a civil dispute to decide the title of land in civil court and than beyond jurisdiction of the criminal court. The criminal court has no jurisdiction to decide the civil case. Hence question is basically is a civil dispute and the prosecution is abuse of the process of criminal court and hence the impugned order is set aside and the petition is allowed. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)