IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.15022 of 2008 1. Santosh Kumar Bazaz son of late Dwarika Prasad Bazaz, resident of Mohalla-Mithanpura, P.S.-Mithanpura, Town and District- Muzaffarpur. 2. Chetan Devi wife of Binod Kumar Kezriwal and daughter of Shiv Shankar Khetan, resident of Mohalla-Tilak Maidan Road, P.S. and Town-Muzaffarpur. 3. Shambhu Rai, son of Bhavichhan Rai, resident of Jamalpur, P.S.-Gogri, District-Khagaria. .......Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Chandra Kishore Khetan, son of late Prabhu Dayal Khetan, resident of Jamalpur, P.S.-Gogri, District-Khagaria. .......Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 05 15.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional P.P. for the State. This application, under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, is to quash the order dated 05.03.2008, passed by Sri R.L. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khagaria in Case No. 713C of 2006, summoning the accused, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioners, finding prima facie case under sections 417 and 423 of the Indian Penal code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that the property in dispute, originally belonged to late Basanti Devi, who was the Mausi (mother’s sister) of Shiv Shankar Khetan. Since the Basanti Devi was issueless, she gifted the disputed property to Jyoti Devi and Chetan Devi, and put them in possession, and on the basis of the deed of gift, the names of Jyoti Devi and Chetan Devi are mutated and Jamabandi is opened in their names, but the complainant wrongly stating that Basanti Devi as the Mousi of his father (Prabhu Dayal Khetan), got his 2 name mutated in respect of the half share of the property of late Basanti Devi and now claiming half share in the property of late Basanti Devi. As such, the dispute is of civil in nature. From the complaint petition, it appears that allegation against the accused petitioners no. 1, 2 and Rahul Bazaz is that they executed the power of attorney to accused petitioner no. 3, Sambhu Rai, on that very basis, accused-petitioner no. 3, Shambhu Rai, sold the land of the share of complainant/opposite party no. 2 also with dishonest intention and the learned Magistrate on perusal of the complaint petition, S.A. of the complainant and statements of the witnesses had arrived at conclusion that prima facie case under sections 417 and 423 is made. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 05.03.2008, passed by Sri R.L. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khagaria in Case No. 713 C of 2006, amounting to abuse of the process of the Court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise his defence, as raised herein, during the course of trial at appropriate stage. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Safik (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)