IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27383 of 2009 1. Ram Anuj Kumar 2. Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Prasad Both sons of Rameshwar Singh, both resident of Village-Simuara Tola, Ghulria chak, P.S.-Tekari, District-Gaya ……..Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Vijay Kumar, S/O-Late Mahabir Mahto, resident of village-Shekhpura tola, Saho Bigha, P.S.-Belaganj, District-Gaya …… Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioners :- Sanjay Kr. Ghosarvey Manoj Kr. Pandey 02 27.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.09.2007 passed by Shri Aloke Raj, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No.681 of 2007 as well as entire proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case. Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Vijay Kumar filed Complaint Case No. 681 of 2007 against the applicants and one Deo Bansh Roy Bachzan @ Manoj Kumar stating therein that on 16.05.2007 at about 12:30 P.M., he was assaulted with fists and slaps and abused by the applicants and aforesaid co-accused and also applicant no. 1 snatched Rs. 500/- from him whereas co- accused Deo Bansh Roy Bachzan @ Manoj Kumar snatched gold chain from him. The reason behind the aforesaid occurrence is said to be conviction of the applicants and some other persons in a criminal case instituted on the basis of complaint of Opposite Party 2 No. 2. The aforesaid complaint petition was enquired by the learned court below under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and subsequently, having found, prima facie, case under Sections 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned court below ordered to issue process against the applicants and co-accused Deo Bansh Roy Bachzan @ Manoj Kumar passing impugned order dated 03.09.2007. Learned counsel for the applicants challenged the impugned order as well as prosecution of the applicants on the ground that the aforesaid complaint case has been filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 with mala fide intention as there is long standing enmity between the applicants and Opposite Party No. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that, as a matter of fact, cousin sister of the applicants was married with Opposite Party No. 2 in the year 1970 but after three years of the marriage, she was deserted by the Opposite Party No. 2 and after that she started residing at her natal place along with the applicants and other accused. It is further contended by him that aforesaid cousin sister of the applicants subsequently executed gift deed in favour of the applicants and co-accused Deo Bansh Roy Bachzan @ Manoj Kumar in respect of her entire property and the aforesaid incident caused annoyance to the Opposite Party No. 2 resulting the filing of false cases against the applicants as well as their other family members. It is further contended by him that in 3 the year 2001, one A.S.I. of Tekari Police Station also enquired the matter and found that cousin sister of the applicants had already executed gift deed in favour of the applicants and there was long standing enmity between the Opposite Party No. 2 and the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that if a complaint is not filed fairly and honestly rather if it is filed to take revenge, this court must exercise the power vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. To fortify his contention he relied upon a decision reported in 2010 (4) PLJR Page-627. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order submitting that the learned court below has passed the impugned order after conducting proper enquiry and long standing enmity does not give ground to the applicants to seek the quashing of impugned order dated 03.09.2007. No doubt, there is long standing enmity between the parties but admittedly, prior to filing of the Complaint Case No. 681 of 2007, a criminal case had been filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 against the applicants and some others and in the aforesaid case applicants as well as some other accused persons were convicted and it is specific case of the Opposite Party No. 2 that the occurrence of Complaint Case No. 681 of 2007 took place on account of the above stated conviction of applicants. Therefore, in my view, it is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise the 4 power vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous case stands dismissed on admission stage itself. However, it is made clear that observations/findings given by this Court in this order shall not prejudice the trial court. SHAHZAD ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)