IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.2736 of 2008 GYAN PRAKASH DUTT TIWARY, Son of Late Parmeshwari Dutt Tiwary, resident of Mohalla- Mahajan Toli No.-2, Police Station-Ara Town in the District of Bhojpur. . . . . Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6/ 13.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2, despite notice. This case was passed over on the earlier date also. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.07.2006, including further proceeding passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ara, Bhojpur in Complaint case no. 192 C of 2006 / 2484 of 2006. Learned counsel submits that no case under Sections 420, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner sold 10 dhurs of land in the year 1985. The opposite party no.2 got a map sanctioned from Ara Municipality and even made construction on it along with a boundary wall. Learned counsel submits that the complainant has accepted the aforesaid facts in the complaint petition. It would appear from the complaint case that complainant states that subsequently this petitioner sold 14 dhurs of land to one Surendra Singh. She states that Surendra Singh is making claim over some portion of the land purchased by her. Learned counsel submits that the sale deed executed in favour of opposite party no.2 and Surendera Singh are distinct and with different boundary. As such the allegation - 2 - that he has sold part of the land to Surendra Singh, which he had sold to opposite party no.2 is incorrect. Learned counsel submits that the allegation of assault is also not against the petitioner but against Surendra Singh, so in this view of matter, case under under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code is not made out at least against him. He further submits that the dispute if any would be of civil dispute and in case if the opposite party has any grievance, she can always file a petition before the Circle Officer for demarcation of land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It appears that the land in question measuring about 10 dhurs was sold to opposite party no.2 by the petitioner way back in the year, 1985. Opposite party no.2 even constructed boundary wall and house after due sanction of map from the Municipality. The dispute as alleged would not come within the purview of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as such the impugned order taking cognizance under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed. Furthermore, there is no allegation of assault by this petitioner, as such order taking cognizance under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is also quashed. This application stands disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)