CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.35601 OF 2006 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1. Om Prakash Sah, son of Lalan Sah 2. Vishwanath Teli @ Vishwanath Sah, son of kishun Sah. 3. Lalan Sah @ Lalan Sahu, son of Vishwanath Teli. 4. Akchay Lal Sah @ Achchhay Lal Sahu, son of Vishwanath Teli. 5. Hriday Narayan Yadav, son of Kauleshwar Yadav All resident of Devsthanpur, P.S. – Itarhi, District – Buxar. ------Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Rajnath Singh Yadav, son of Late Ramjatan Yadav, resident of Devsthapur, P.S. – Itarhi, District – Buxar. -----Opposite Parties. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ***** Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 21.02.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar in Case no. 171(C)/2005, Tr. No. 1264/2006 taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code besides quashing of entire complaint petition. 3. The relevant short fact is that the complainant opposite party no.2 claiming himself - 2 - declared Bataidar of original land holder Krishnaraj Singh, came out with the case that the petitioners got harvest the wheat crops grown over the land, on protest he was assaulted and also deprived of the crops. 4. On the basis of earlier order passed in case no. 8/1995-96 dated 02.01.1996 by D.C.L.R. Buxar, refusing claim of Bataidar levelled by the complainant opposite party no.2 against said Krishnaraj Singh and others besides subsequent order passed by Collector, Buxar, on 11.03.2005 staying order dated 15.01.2005 passed by D.C.L.R. in Bataidari case no. 6/1997-98, which was lodged by the complainant opposite party no.2. As submitted concealing earlier refusal of his claim by same authority vide order dated 02.01.1996. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners being purchaser of the land in question in the year 1997 from son of Krishnaraj Singh recorded tenant who have been falsely implicated in this case, wherein the complainant opposite party no.2 had lodged his claim on the basis of an order obtained by playing fraud on operation of which had already been stayed. So, the proceeding be quashed. - 3 - 5. So far claim of Bataidari raised by complainant opposite party no.2 is concerned, it is undisputedly civil dispute, but in the instant complaint case on the basis of rival claims allegation is to commit assault and theft. Learned members of the Bar are not in a position to let this court aware about the latest position of the dispute under consideration by the authority dealing claim of Bataidari. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems desirable that the parties shall produce all the relevant materials before the court below who shall consider and pass appropriate order at the stage of hearing on the point of charge and pass appropriate order without being prejudiced of instant non-interference. 7. Accordingly, with the above direction and observation, the impugned order and complaint petition stands disposed of. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court below through Fax at the cost of petitioner. Patna High Court Dated : The 19th November 2010 Rajeev/N.A.F.R. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)