CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.11970 OF 2004 ********** In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ********** 1. DEVDAS SEN ALIAS DEBDAS SEN 2. CHANDI DAS SEN 3. TULSI DAS SEN 4. NIMAI KUMAR SEN 5. TARUN KUMAR SEN 6. SANJAY KUMAR SEN 7. SUNITA SEN GUPTA 8. DHRUV DAS SEN S.NO. 1,2,3,4,5 AND 6 ARE SONS AND S.NO. 7 IS DAUGHTER OF LATE BASANT KUMAR SEN, ALL RESIDENT OF HOSPITAL ROAD, GANJ NO. (2) P.S. BETTIAH NAGAR, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. --------------------------(Appellants) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRADIP KUMAR SEN, S/O LATE PRAFULLA KUMAR SEN, RESIDENT OF HOSPITAL ROAD, GANJ NO. 2 BETTIAH, P.S. BETTIAH NAGAR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. -----------------------(Respondents) ************ For the Petitioners : 1. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate 2. Anirban Kundn, Advocate 3. Sanjay Kr. Singh Advocate 4. Krishna Sayam Jha, Advocate For the State : Shri Choubay Janaharan COUNSIL FOR O.P.-2 : No one appear P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioners seek quashing of the entire complaint including the order dated 26.2.2003 passed by Judicial 2 Magistrate, Bettiah in complaint case no. 992 (C)/2002, T.R. No. 4240/03 by which cognizance has been taken for offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 149, 341, 323, 452, 380, 504 and 465 I.P.C. 2. By an order dated 8.2.2005 the further proceedings in the court below was stayed and it appears that in presence of the parties on 29.4.2005 the matter was admitted for hearing. Today no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 3. The case of the complainant is that he was a Doctor and out of the ancestral property a house had been allotted to him in his share but the accused persons fabricated three sale deeds and misappropriated the land and building. Moreover, one of the sale deeds also contained a wrong plot number since the same belonged to the complainant and in the another sale deed the house belonging to the complainant was incorporated in the details of land mentioned by the accused persons. When he confronted the accused persons they got angry on account of which a proceedings under Sections 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated on 8.2.2002. Thereafter on 29.4.2002 some of the accused persons entered into the house of the complainant and committed theft of his property. 4. It has been submitted that the petitioners happen to be the first cousins of the complainant and it is not in dispute that there was a partition in the family and shares were allotted as per the 3 family arrangement. It has further been submitted that one of the mistakes in the sale deed has already been corrected and therefore part of the complaint has been embarked upon erroneous grounds. Moreover, merely mentioning a wrong plot number in the sale-deed would not make out any offence whatsoever. Also from narrative of the complaint no criminal intent is made out and if it all it is a case of civil dispute for which the complainant could take a different recourse. 5. I find there is mention of a proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C., pending between the parties in the complaint and it appears that the property dispute between the parties has led to filing of the present complaint. In this background I am of the opinion that continuance of the proceedings is an abuse of the process of the court and deserves to be quashed. 6. In view of such, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 26.2.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in complaint case no. 992 (C)/2002, T.R. No. 4240/03 by which cognizance has been taken is quashed. 7. Application is stands allowed. ( Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 12th July, 2010 NAFR/ Fahad.