IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.48695 of 2008 Mukhiya Devi, wife of Kesho Singh, resident of village- Bhagirtha, Police Station-Dinara, District-Rohtas. ………………………………………………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Vikramaditiya Yadvendra, son of Late Ram Prasad Singh. 3. Jitendra Singh, son of Kesho Singh. 4. Rajendra Kumar, son of Chandrama Singh. 5. Gagendra Singh, son of Ram Prasad Singh. All are resident of village-Bhagirtha, Police Station- Dinara, District-Rohtas. ………………………………………..Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Prabhakar Jha and Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. T.N. Thakur, A.P.P. ------------------ 2. 23.8.2011. Heard. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 16.7.2008 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Criminal Revision No.152 of 2008, whereby he has dismissed the aforesaid Criminal Revision filed by the complainant-petitioner, affirming the order dated 2 2.6.2008 passed by Sri Ram Chandra Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bikramganj, Rohtas, in Complaint Case No.850 of 2007, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint petition filed by the complainant- petitioner on inquiry. It appears from the complaint petition filed by the complainant-petitioner, Mukhiya Devi, that plot no.399 measuring an area of 22 decimals of khata no.22 and other lands were given to the complainant by way of a gift by her father-in-law, Vasdeo Singh. Accused-opposite party no.3, Jitendra Singh, in collusion with other accused- opposite parties sold the said land on 26.10.2007 to opposite party no.2, Vikramaditiya Yadvendra, through registered sale deed on which accused-opposite party no.4, Rajendra Kumar, is the identifier and accused-opposite party no.5, Gajendra Singh, is a witness. On knowing about the aforesaid facts, the complainant asked accused- opposite party no.3, Jitendra Singh, to execute the Bajdawa but he did not execute the same in favour of the complainant and started avoiding the same and also abused her. From the complaint petition, order dated 2.6.2008 3 passed in Complaint Case No.850 of 2007 by Sri Ram Chandra Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikramganj, Rohtas, it appears that the accused-opposite party no.3, Jitendra Singh, is the son of the complainant. In course of inquiry, the learned Magistrate on going through the complaint petition and the statements of the witnesses arrived at the conclusion that dispute appears to be civil in nature and has dismissed the complaint petition on 2.6.2008, which was challenged through Criminal Revision No.152 of 2008 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 16.7.2008 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, which has been challenged before this Court by filing this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking inherent jurisdiction. There is nothing in the impugned order dated 2.6.2008 passed by the learned Magistrate in Complaint Case No.850 of 2007 to show lack of jurisdiction or abuse of the process of the court. Under such circumstances, in the present case, there is no scope to exercise inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this 4 application is dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)