IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.23705 of 2008 1. Smt.Lakhpati Devi, wife of Yogendra Rai. 2. Yogendra Rai, son of Late Badri Rai. 3. Shailendra Rai, son of Late Badri Rai. 4. Rambriksha Rai, son of Ramchandra Rai. All are resident of Village-Bagahi Kala, P.S. Basantpur, District-Siwan. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Mostt. Paspati Kunwar, wife of Late Vishwanath Singh, resident of village-Bagahi Kala, P.S. Basantpur, District-Siwan. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Irshad Ahmad Khan, Advocate. ------------------------------ 4. 14.10.2011. Heard the parties. The petitioners have filed this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the court of Sri S. Alam, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siwan, in Complaint Case No.C-743 of 2008/Tr. No.4172 of 2008, summoning the accused-petitioners, under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on inquiry, finding prima facie case under Sections 420, 465, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2 In brief, the case is that the complainant- opposite party no.2, Mostt. Paspati Kunwar, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.C-743 of 2008, with the contention that she is an illiterate and old widow lady and has slight eye vision due to disease prior to the date of occurrence. Her elder son, Vinod Singh, who is in private service, with his family is residing at Delhi and used to look after his family and also used to fulfill her requirement of expenses of medicine and agricultural needs. The further case of the complainant-opposite party no.2 is that on 23.10.2007, the accused-petitioner no.2, Yogendra Rai and accused-petitioner no.3 Shailendra Rai, came to her house and told that the treatment of eyes is going on at the cost of the Government at Basantpur Registry Katchhery. On believing their statements, the complainant-opposite party no.2 went there alongwith the accused-petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 and for admitting her, thumb impression on blank paper and register was taken. After 2-2 ½ hours, they told her that the doctor did not come today and treatment will be held on the next day. Again, on 24.10.2007, the complainant-opposite party no.2 was taken by the accused- petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 on the pretext of her eyes treatment 3 at Basantpur Registry Katchhery and obtained her finger prints, thumb impression and photographs at many places and told her that on account of cancellation of programme of Government doctor, her treatment is not possible and, thereafter, they at the behest of the deed-writer, identifier, witnesses and staff of the registry got the sale deed executed from her regarding Plot No.763 of Khata No.29 by committing fraud. The complainant-opposite party no.2 has also alleged that she was not in need of money and she has neither put her thumb impression in the presence of the witness, accused-petitioner no.4, Rambriksh Rai and accused no.5, Magister Rai, nor they had put their signature on the draft of deed. As such, all the accused persons including the petitioners, named in the complaint petition, by hatching conspiracy got the sale deed executed in their favour without payment of consideration money to the complainant-opposite party no.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the complaint case is totally false and the same has been filed with a view to harass the accused-petitioners for illegal gain after execution of sale deed. It has also been submitted that, in fact, the 4 complainant-opposite party no.2 herself executed the sale deed on 24.10.2007 after receiving consideration amount as detailed in the sale deed in favour of the accused-petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from bare perusal of the complainant petition, the dispute appears to be civil in nature. On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the complainant-opposite party no.2 made allegation that by committing fraud, the accused-petitioners by obtaining her thumb impression and pasting her photographs got the sale deed executed after taking her to Basantpur Registry Katchhery on the pretext of her eyes treatment. From Annexure-‘2’ to this application, which is the photocopy of the sale deed, it appears that opposite party no.2 has executed the sale deed ion favour of petitioner no.1, Lakhpati Devi, wife of petitioner no.2, Yogendra Rai, and the sale deed has been properly registered by the Registry Office. From the complaint petition, the dispute appears to be civil in nature, which can be decided by the civil court of competent jurisdiction. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case setting in motion the criminal proceeding 5 through the impugned order summoning the accused petitioners, appears to be an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.5.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.C-743 of 2008/ Tr. No.4172 of 2008, by the court of Sri S. Alam, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siwan, with respect to the petitioners, is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)