IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.5906 OF 2007 1. BALESHWAR YADAV, SON OF LATE CHOUDHARY YADAV 2. BISHWANATH YADAV, SON OF BALESHWAR YADAV 3. MAHENDRA YADAV, SON OF LATE JATAI YADAV 4. BAIDYANATH MAHASETH, SON OF LATE ANAND MAHASETH 5. RAJEDNRA MAHASETH, SON OF LATE ANAND MAHASETH 6. PAWAN KUMAR MAHASETH, SON OF BAIDYANATH MAHASETH 7. RAKESH MAHASETH, SON OF RAJENDRA MATHSETH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAIRA, POLICE STATION BHAIRAB ASTHAN, DISTRICT MADHUBANI ……………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MAHABIR SAFI, SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA SAFI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAIRA, POLICE STATION BHAIRON ASTHAN, DISTRICT MADHUBANI ……………………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES *********** FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. AJAY KUMAR THAKUR, ADVOCATE MR. RAVI RANJAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. ****************** 6 22/03/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed against the order dated 13.09.2006 by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Samastipur SC/ST Police Station Case No. 116 of 2004. From the First Information Report, it appears that infact this case has been instituted because of land dispute. In the First Information Report, it is mentioned 2 that the petitioners did not allow him to build his house as he is a dhobi by caste. It is also alleged that the petitioners do not allow him (informant) to use the road which is shown as a road in the khatiyan. It has been alleged that the petitioner is said to have stopped the informant from utilizing his land to enable the informant to go to his plot of agricultural land. Notices were issued in this matter. Nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 the informant, when this matter was taken up on 06.02009 and today. It is apparent from the First Information Report that the entire occurrence is because of the fact that the informant is claiming a path to go to his agricultural land. There is a report of the Circle Office and the map annexed to indicate that infact there is no road or path way and the land belongs to the petitioners. It appears that the informant had earlier tried to move the authorities to be granted a right of way which was dismissed on the ground that the land belongs to the petitioners. In order to pressurize the petitioners, this case has been filed alleging that the informant is not being allowed to use the alleged land because of belonging to a particular caste which is apparently false and untrue in view of the documents and the report of 3 the Circle Officer, the map and the Khatiyan which are unimpeachable documents. Considering all these aspects, the order dated 13.09.2006 passed in Samastipur SC/ST Police Station Case No. 116 of 2004 is hereby quashed subject to the fact that charges have not been framed in this case. In the result, this application is allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)