IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.47128 of 2008 1. Yashoda Devi Daughter of late Sukhdeo Poodar wife of Late Asarfi Poddar 2. Krishna Poddar @ Krishna Kumar Poddar son of Late Asarfi Poddar 3. Nitu @ Nitin Kumar Poddar son of Krishna Kumar Poddar ….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Bimlendu Shekhar Singh son of Late Madhav Prasad Singh, resident of Manihari, PS Manihari, District Katihar ……….. Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 03- 5/12/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the cognizance order dated 25.4.2008 passed in C.A. No. 375/08 by Shri Vipul Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, against the petitioners under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the entire complaint it is clear that the matter is a civil dispute since there is allegation that inspite of taking money by the petitioners, some lands which are the subject matter of the dispute, were not transferred in favour of opposite party no. 2. He submits that in fact no money was taken as it is clear from the notice sent by the petitioners to opposite party no. 2. 2 Inspite of that opposite party no. 2 felt aggrieved and demand was made repeatedly to make such payment. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in question is situated in Katihar and are ancestral properties of the petitioners and the petitioners presently live in the district of Bhagalpur (Naugachia) and since opposite party no. 2 is an influential local person, he had already taken possession and in fact even today it is valued much over Rs. 4 lacs for which demand has also been made by the petitioners on opposite party no. 2. He sums up his argument by submitting that it is a civil dispute and the present complaint is only by way of the pressure tactic and abuse of process of the court. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 on the other hand submits that there is no illegality in the order for the reason that at the time of taking cognizance only prima facie case is to be found true as it appears to the court concerned that ingredients of the Sections under which cognizance has been taken is made out. He also submits that the matter on facts are to be agitated at the time of trial when the parties shall have adequate opportunity to lead evidence and convince the court with 3 regard to their respective cases. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court feels that from the nature of the allegations made in the complaint petition it is obvious that the matter is purely of civil nature. This Court feels that if this kind of order is allowed to remain, then it would be abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the order dated 25.4.2008 passed in C.A. No. 375/08 by Sri Vipul Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, stands quashed. This application accordingly stands allowed. mrl ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)