IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40732 of 2006 MD. SOIB @ MD. SHOAIB Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Md. Annam son of Md. Mohiuddin Marhum. ----------- 8. 19.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2, despite valid service of notice. Questioning the prosecution and order of cognizance as affirmed in the revision under Sections 323, 379, 341, 504/34 of the Penal Code in C.R. Case No. 670 of 2005/Tr. No. 2344 of 2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, learned counsel submits that from the allegations itself it is apparent that the complainant is not owner of the land in question in which the petitioner allegedly intruded to pluck fruits. The allegations themselves admit that the complainant was the owner of the adjacent land. The submission is of false implication. The petitioner is none other but the relative of Shamina Khatoon described in the complaint as owner of the land. If the petitioner had intruded into the land of another and plucked fruits, surely the owner of the land should protest and lodge prosecution. The petitioner was the owner of the land. In the facts and circumstances of the case, disinterest of opposite party no. 2 to oppose the present application, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is satisfied 2 that the proceeding against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. It is so ordered accordingly. The application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)