IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8285 of 2008 1. AWADHESH SHARMA SON OF LATE LAXAMI NARAYAN SHARMA 2. BIJAY KUMAR SHARMA SON OF LATE SURESH SINGH 3. AJAY KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF BAKE BIHARI SHARMA ALL R/O- VILLAGE BIRAIE NAWADIH, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT. AURANGABAD(BIHAR). 4. RAM NAGINA SINGH S/O- LATE MUKHU YADAV, R/O- VILLAGE- DURGAPUR, P.S.- KALER, DIST. ARWAL (BIHAR). 5. JANARADHAN YADAV SON OF KESHLAL YADAV 6. SHIVAPUJAN YADAV 7. SACHIDANAND YADAV 8. BIHARI LAL SINGH ALL SONS OF RAM CHALITAR SINGH, ALL R/O- VILLAGE- ASALAMPUR, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT- AURANGABAD (BIHAR). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MOTI YADAV SON OF LATE BIPHAN YADAV R/O- VILLAGE BIRAIE NAWADIH TOLE ASALAMPUR, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTT. AURANGABAD(BIHAR). For the petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh no. 6, Advocate For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy ‘Raman’, APP ----------- 3 01.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. Inspite of service of notice, no body has appeared on behalf of O.P. no. 2 (complainant-informant). Petitioners raise a grievance with respect to order dated 18.2.2003 whereby upon conclusion of inquiry made under Section 202 Cr.P.C., learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Aurangabad, took cognizance under Sections 420, 467, 465, 448, 149 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act in Complaint case no 1060 of 2002/Tr. No. 815 of 2003. A complaint (Annexure-2) was lodged against petitioners herein and others alleging therein that they had fraudulently purchased the land belonging to the complainant and 2 subsequently sold it. There is further allegation that petitioner no. 1 fired which, however, did not cause injury to anyone. The said matter was transmitted to the police for institution of an F.I.R. and, accordingly, F.I.R. being Daudnagar P.S. case no. 140 of 2001 was instituted. The matter was investigated whereafter the police submitted final form (Annexure-2/1) wherein the accusations were found false. Based on a protest petition, an inquiry was made whereafter cognizance was taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that on the same set of facts, another co-accused namely Moti Lal Yadav moved this Court questioning the impugned order on diverse grounds. This Court by order dated 10.1.2008 passed on Cr. Misc. no. 14769 of 2007 (Annexure-6) took the view that a perusal of the allegations contained in the complaint, it appeared to be a civil dispute in view of continuous transactions of land in question. Having found so, this Court quashed the order dated 18.2.2005 in Complaint Case no. 1060 of 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid order. Learned A.P.P. accepts the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the petitioners but submits that petitioner no. 1 is also facing a charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Admittedly, no fire arm injury was sustained by any one on the prosecution side. Such allegations are generally levelled as super-additions. Since, no body has admittedly sustained any 3 injury, in my view, the case of petitioner no. 1 is also covered by the order contained in Annexure-6. In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the present application should also be allowed on the reasonings set out in Annexure-6. Consequently, the application is allowed. The order dated 18.2.2003 passed in Complaint Case no. 1060 of 2002/Tr. No. 815 of 2003 is quashed and set aside. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )