IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.16733 OF 1998 1. RAM SANJIVAN SINGH, SON OF LATE JITU SINGH 2. NIRMAL KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RAM SANJIVAN SINGH 3. KAMAL KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RAM SANJIVAN SINGH 4. PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RAM SANJIVAN SINGH ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAMHARIYA, POLICE STATION MAJORGANJ, DISTRICT SITAMARHI 5. RAM CHANDRA SINGH, CONTRACTOR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RATANPUR, POLICE STATION MAJORGANJ, DISTRICT SITAMARHI 6. PAWITRA MAHTO, SON OF LATE BHAGWAN MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RATANPUR, POLICE STATION MAJORGANJ, DISTRICT SITAMARHI 7. HANIF MIAN, SON OF MAZED MIAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RATANPUR, POLICE STATION MAJORGANJ, DISTRICT SITAMARHI 8. JAL MOHAMMAD, SON OF MAZID MIAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RATANPUR, POLICE STATION MAJORGANJ, DISTRICT SITAMARHI 9. ANIL KUMAR SINGH, SON OF NAND KISHORE SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GAMHARIYA, POLICE STATION MAJORGANJ, DISTRICT SITAMARHI …………………………………….………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM KRIPAL SINGH, SON OF LATE UCHIT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAMHARIYA, POLICE STATION MAJORGANJ, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. AT PRESENT, RETIRED DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MOHALLA ANISABAD, QUARTER NO. A/74, GANDHI VIHAR, PATNA-2. ……………………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** 8 11/01/2011 The petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.03.1998 passed in Complaint Case No. C1/73 of 1998 by the Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the petitioners variously armed hurled abuses and asked them not to cut the trees belonging to them. It is alleged that the accused persons have sold away the trees for more than Rs. One lakh. 2 Counsel for the petitioners has stated in the application that the criminal case has been instituted because of the land dispute with respect to plot no. 3910 & 3913 of survey khata no. 471. Consolidation proceedings were pending with respect to these plots, which were decided in favour of the petitioners. The matter, however, was remanded by this High Court vide CWJC No. 1737 of 1994 to the consolidation officer. The said order was challenged in LPA No. 166 of 1995, which was allowed by this Court vide order and judgment dated 19th December, 2006 by which the Court has set aside the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in Consolidation Appeal No. 169 of 1992 and restored the order dated 28.12.1992 and 11.11.1993/18.11.1993 passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Consolidation Revision No. 56 of 1993. Counsel for the petitioners submits that perhaps the order passed in LPA No. 166 of 1992 has been challenged before the Apex Court and the matter has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer. In any event of the matter, the genesis of the occurrence is the dispute regarding the possession of the land inquestion, which is under consideration of the consolidation authorities. The allegations that sales have been made of the trees in question would not at all affect 3 the possession of the petitioners or the person in whose favour the consolidation proceeding is ultimately decided as it would require the permission of the Collector to sell any land or to sell any immovable usufructs standing on the land. Considering these aspects, this Court finds that the allegations otherwise have no meaning in itself. It is alleged that the petitioners hurled abuses and also sold trees were the main allegations. These facts hardly constitute an offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 426, 379 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code. There can be no allegation of theft in a case where there is a bonafide land dispute between the parties, especially in the facts of this case. In the result, I quash the order dated 18.03.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Trial No. 738 of 1998 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1/73 of 1998. This application is accordingly allowed. This order is subject to the fact that no final decision has been taken by the Trial Court. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )