IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54965 of 2006 LAXMI PASWAN, Son of Late Kokan Paswan, Resident of village Siranda, P.S. Pranpur, District – Katihar. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Anup Narayan Singh, Son of Late Harendra Narayan Singh, Resident of village Mainanagar, P.S. Paranpur, District Katihar 3. Ajeet Kumar, Circle Ofrficer, Pranpur Block, P.S. Pranpur, District Katihar 4. Circle Inspector Anchal Pranpur, P.S. Pranpur District Katihar 5. Janardan Prasad Sah, Son of of Not known , Rajashwa Karmchari Pranpur Anchal, P.S. Pranpur, District Katihar …. Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sah, Advocate O R D E R The complainant of Complaint Case No. 721 of 2006 has filed this application for quashing of the order dated 8.9.2006/11.9.2006 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed the compliant case on 21.4.2006 inter alia alleging the commission of offences under sections 323, 384, 500, 506, 467, 468, 120B and 420/34 IPC, sections 3 / 4 / 10 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at the hands of the 4 persons arrayed as accused initially at 8 A.M. on 12.4.2006 and then again at 4 P.M. According to the complainant he was a member of the Harijan community and had been granted purcha by the State Government for land out of the 158.33 ½ 2 decimals of land voluntarily surrendered as surplus land by one Birendra Singh of Nihalia State, Jiyaganj, by Gazette Notification no. 39/76-77. It is said that the aforesaid lands surrendered by Birendra Singh was distributed by the Government amongst, apart from the petitioner, to 68 other landless Harijans and persons of most backward community in which most of the persons had been allotted one acre of land and the others had been provided a little less and they were also provided with red cards. It is further submitted that in the year 1984 the lands were mutated in favour of the card holders and they were also provided with rent receipts and permitted to cultivate the land. However, notwithstanding the same accused no. 1 allegedly captured the lands of the petitioner and others in connivance with accused no. 2, the Anchala Adhikhari, Pranpur. It is further alleged that when they approached the Anchala Adhikari for relief he flew into a rage and demanded each of them to pay Rs. 4000/- and finding no way out the petitioner and 7 others deposited a total sum of Rs. 36,000/- for getting rent receipts but notwithstanding the payment no receipt was granted. They then approached the superior authorities whereupon directions were issued to the Anchala Adhikari, Pranpur, to take appropriate steps in the matter. It is alleged that on the relevant day when the complainant along with his witnesses went to the residence of accused no. 4 he allegedly did not grant any receipt and on the contrary started abusing them in filthy language and casting aspersions to their caste. 3 The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant on S.A. and examining his witnesses Raj Kumar Paswan dismissed the complaint by the impugned order. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Magistrate had ignored the provisions of law and had called for a report from the accused Circle Officer about the genuineness or otherwise of the prosecution case and taking the report of the Circle Officer into consideration he dismissed the complaint. It was further submitted that while dealing with a proceeding under section 202 Cr.P.C. a Magistrate was required to look into the materials which come on record through the evidence of the witnesses and he could not look beyond that to any other material for arriving at a decision. The O.Ps. have appeared and two counter affidavits have been filed, one by O.P. No. 1 and the others on behalf of O.P. Nos. 3 to 5. However, without adverting to the submissions of the learned counsels for the opposite parties, I am of the view that this application for quashing is fit to be dismissed on amongst others primarily on two grounds. Firstly, a criminal revision application would lie against the dismissal of a complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. and this Court in exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C. could not, in any manner, test the bona fides of the impugned order. In the case of Laxmi Kant Vs. Gokul Das (1976 Cr.L.J. 381) it was held that a revision lies if the complaint is dismissed by looking into extraneous materials not falling within 4 the scope of section 203 Cr.P.C.. The other reason is the reason correctly assigned by the Court below for dismissing this application which is that no apparent overt criminal act had been committed by any of the persons arrayed as accused. To my mind, the occurrence at the house of accused no. 4 appears to be rather ornamental in order to bring the matter within the ambit of criminal law. For the reasons stated I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated : The 10th of July, 2009 Sanjay Pd./A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)