CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS NO. 46410 OF 2006 ********* (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) ******* 1. NAND KISHORE TIWARY, SON OF KAPILDEO TIWARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BISBAMBHARPUR, POLICE STATION NATWAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS 2. SHEO SHANKAR SINGH, SON OF LATE HEMRAJ SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAE COMPANYSARAY, POLICE STATION SASARAM, DISTRICT ROHTAS …………………………………………………………….……….… ….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHRI RAM SINGH, SON OF LATE CHANDAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUMRAO, POLICE STTION SHIVSAGAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS ……………………………….………… ……………………….……..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. RAGHUNANDAN KUMAR SINGH, ADV. FOR O.P. NO. 2 :- N O N E FOR THE STATE :- MR. A. M. P. MEHTA, A.P.P. ******* P R E S E N T HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 to pursue this matter despite valid service of notice. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 16.05.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 35 C of 2006 (Trial No. 2361 of 2006) by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sasaram (Rohtas) has taken 2 cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 3. The accused no. 1 Sharda Kunwar is the daughter-in-law of Amerika Singh. The informant is the son of Chandar Singh. Chandar Singh and Amerika Singh are full brothers. 4. The allegation against the accused persons is that Sharda Kunwar in connivance with these two petitioners has sold her share in the property. It is alleged in the complaint petition that there was a partition years ago and by way of that partition, the lands which have been sold come in the share of Chandar Singh. Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, refers to the records of right and the order passed in the revisional survey to submit that the lands are belonging to Sharda Kunwar. It is submitted that the complaint case has been filed in order to deprive Sharda Kunwar from her rightful share. 5. This case is purely of civil nature as the question of partition can only be determined in a civil suit, which has already been filed by the complainant and his brothers. 6. If in the civil suit, it is found that Sharda Kunwar has sold in excess of her share, there is a remedy available to the complainant in the civil suit itself. As such, I find that no case is made out against 3 the petitioners under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the order dated 16.05.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 35 C of 2006 (Trial No. 2361 of 2006) is hereby quashed. 7. In the result, this application is allowed. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 19th APRIL, 2011 N.A.F.R./ANAND