IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2689 of 2008 RAVINDRA PODDAR, SON OF PARMESHWAR PODDAR, RESIDENT OF PATNA GADDI ROAD JAY NAGAR, POLICE STATION-JAY NAGAR, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI………………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SATYA NARAYAN GUPTA, S/O SHYAM NARAYAN GUPTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-JAY NAGAR PATNA GADDI GUPTA MARG WARD NO.2, P.S. JAY NAGAR, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. ……………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh No.I, A.P.P. For O.P.No.2 : Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate. ---------- O R D E R The petitioner, who is one of the F.I.R. named accused in Jai Nagar P.S. Case No.13 of 2007, has prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal prosecution arising therefrom including the order dated 24.7.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, whereby he has taken cognizance against all the three accused under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307, 504/34 I.P.C. One Satya Narayan Gupta , impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, submitted a written report on 19.1.2007 before the Officer Incharge, Jai Nagar P.S. inter alia alleging therein that earlier that day at about 8 A.M. as he got started the construction work of increasing the boundary wall of his land, his neighbour Ravindra Poddar, the petitioner herein, alongwith his wife, Shobha Devi, and son, Pankaj Poddar, objected to the construction work and demanded money for - 2 - the construction work to continue. The informant ignored the demand made by the petitioner whereupon he was abused in filthy language and also assaulted and the amount of Rs.750/- which he had kept in his pocket towards expenses for the construction work was snatched away. It is also alleged that the petitioner threatened him with dire consequences for him and the family if all the cases against him were not withdrawn and thereafter he started demolishing the construction work and when the labourers raised objection thereto they started pelting stones and bricks which resulted in injuries to the informant, his family members and the labourers. The informant has further alleged that the accused persons had even on earlier occasions resorted to assault with them for which several cases being Jai Nagar P.S. Case Nos.123 of 2005, 235 of 2005 and 86 of 2005 have been registered. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without examining the materials available in the case diary has taken cognizance in a most mechanical manner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to the previous disputes and litigations. The learned counsel has also sought to deny the allegations made in the written report and has submitted that being an influential person he had managed the police and had got lodged the present case by submitting an ante dated petition which would be evident from the fact that the petitioner had been detained by the police from much prior to the institution of the present case for which his son, Pankaj Poddar, had filed a petition bearing Misc. Case No.46 - 3 - of 2007. The learned counsel also raised a grievance against no injury report being available in the case diary and there being no disclosure as to which part of the body the injured had sustained the injuries. The assertions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was in custody from prior to the instant occurrence is not substantiated by any document and even if it is so that would only form part of his defence which can be raised and agitated in course of the trial. Admittedly, there is long standing land dispute between the parties but as the saying goes “enmity cuts both ways”. While the defence case is that they have been falsely implicated, the prosecution case is of the informant, his family members and labourers being assaulted by the petitioner and his family members. These are disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. since they have to be proved or disproved by leading cogent evidence. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 30th of January, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.