CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8539 OF 2003 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ---------- 1. Chhabi Lal Pandit @ Chavila Pandit, Son of Late Darbi Pandit 2. Prakash Pandit, Son of Chhabi Lal Pandit @ Chavila Pandit 3. Smt. Kag Din, W/O Chhabi Lal Pandit @ Chavila Pandit, All residents of Village- Aambari Katkowa, P.S. Pothia District-Kishanganj 4. Niresh Chandra Singh, Son of not known , Deed Writer, Thakurganj Registry Office, P.S. Thakurganj, District- Kishanganj --- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Md. Mahfiluddin @ Pathlu, Son of Late Mohar Ali, resident of Mohalla- Pacha Basti, P.S. Pothia, District-Kishanganj --- Opp.Parties. ------------- Advocate for the petitioners: Sri S.N.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate For the State : Smt. Renu Kumari, A.P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 2.4.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj in connection with Complaint Case No.C706 of 2001. By the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420,465,467, 468, 323, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the accused persons. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.706C of 2001. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that in the year 1980, 2 petitioner no.1 had agreed to take some land of the complainant on lease for seven years @ Rs.1000/- per year and, as such, as per lease agreement, Rs.7000/- was to be paid to the complainant. For the purposes of executing the lease deed, petitioner no.1 and complainant had gone to the Registry Office and signature of the complainant was obtained on the deed. However, while the Registrar at the time of registry inquired regarding the sale of the deed, the complainant noticed that accused no.1 had suppressed the fact and by committing fraud was trying to get the sale deed executed and thereafter the complainant returned from the Registry Office and he started doing the agricultural work on the land in question. It was alleged that on 25.05.2001, while the complainant as usual was ploughing the land in question, suddenly petitioner no.1 arrived there and he started to say that since he had already purchased the land in question how the complainant was ploughing over the land and, thereafter accused persons started assaulting the complainant . In the said occurrence, it was alleged that one of the accused persons, i.e. petitioner no.2 forcibly took Rs.550/- from his upper pocket of the shirt. The complainant further disclosed that subsequently on 1.6.2001 he went to Kishanganj Registry Office and obtained certified copy of the sale deed in question and thereafter he came to know that the petitioners had committed forgery and got the sale executed. After filing of the complaint petition and conducting enquiry, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order i.e. order dated 2.4.2002 took cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 465,467,468, 323, 379 of 3 the Indian Penal Code. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 03.03.2004, while issuing notice to Opp.Party no.2, this Court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceeding in Complaint Case No. C 706 of 2001 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj shall remain stayed. In spite valid service of notice on Opp.Party no.2, since he did not appear, on 21.10.2005 the petition was admitted for hearing and it was directed that during the pendency of this application, interim order passed on 3.3.2004 shall remain operative. The order of stay is still continuing. 4. Even at the time of hearing, none has come forward on behalf of Opp.Party no.2. 5. Sri S.N.P.Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance and initiation of the proceeding in Complaint Case No.C 706 of 2001, submits that the present complaint petition was filed by the complainant with an oblique motive. It was submitted that the complainant had already executed the sale deed in respect of the land in question in favour of petitioner no.1 long back in the year 1980. After noticing the fact at later stage that rate of the land in the locality had enhanced excessively, the complainant without any rhyme and reason had filed the present complaint petition. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that after execution of the sale deed, petitioner no.1 continued his peaceful possession 4 over the land in question and started to cultivate the land. It was submitted that after filing of the complaint petition, the complainant filed a petition for initiating a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. However, in the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. also possession of the petitioners was found by the authority concerned. Subsequently, on the petition filed by the complainant, a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was also initiated, which too ended in favour of the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure-4 to the present petition at pages 23-28, which is the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in Case No.313(M) of 2001 under Section 144 Cr.P.C. . Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Annexure-5 to the present petition, which is an order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kishanganj in Case No.313 (M) of 2001. By the said order, the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion in favour of the petitioners and against Opp.Party no.2. The possession over the land in question was found in favour of the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners besides referring the aforesaid documents has also referred number of documents, which have been enclosed with the present petition. At this stage, there is no requirement to see all those documents. However, on the basis of the copy of the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, it appears that the possession over the land in question was found in favour of the petitioners. Besides this, in the complaint petition, the complainant had alleged that the occurrence 5 had taken place from 1980 to 2001. It is difficult to comprehend that how the complainant did not notice earlier that the sale deed was executed long back in the year 1980. Moreover, non-appearance of Opp.Party no.2 in the present petition also indicates that Opp.Party no.2, the complainant, had half-heartedly filed the complaint petition. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances, particularly on the ground that the allegation leveled by the complainant relates to an occurrence , which had taken place in the year 1980, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to allow the prosecution in Complaint Case No.C 706 of 2001 to further proceed . The Court is of the opinion that allowing such prosecution will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the court. With a view to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, it is necessary for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 2.4.2002 passed in Complaint Case No.C 706 of 2001 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 6th September,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)