IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7556 of 2008 1. RAGHUNANDAN MANDAL, Son of Late Dip Narayan Mandal, resident of village – Kushwaha tola, Balughat Road, P.O. + P.S. – Sultanganj, District – Bhagalpur. 2. Ram Prasad mandal, son of Ayodhya Mandal, resident of village – Mirhatti, P.S. – Sultanganj, District – Bhagalpur. -------- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Manoj Kumar Mandal, son of Nand Lal Mandal, resident of village – Kushwaha Tola, Balughat Road, P.O. + P.S. – Sultanganj, District – Bhagalpur. ---------------- Opposite Parties. ***** 04. 07.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and Opposite Party. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quashing of the order dated 22.11.2007 passed in G.R. Case No. 2990/2003 (Arising out of Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 214/2003) taking cognizance for the offences under Section 420, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur. In short, the prosecution case based on the written application of opposite party no. 2 dated 04.12.2003, is that there are some properties detailed in the petition standing in the name of his father Nand Lal Mandal, who is traceless since 1976, and never return home. Grand uncle of the informant Dip Narayan Mandal and his two sons Raghunandan Mandal and Harinandan Mandal, got the property transferred in their names with the help of witnesses Binod Mandal and Shankar Mandal, who had denied putting their signature on the deed (details is - 2 - missing) and assured to shown in affidavit. In support of their contentions, it is also alleged that at the time of registration of the instrument, the informant opposite party no. 2 was aged about 6 years and his mother also died two years thereafter. The date and other details of transaction are missing from the written application and after investigation police submitted charge sheet and by the impugned order cognizance was taken. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that father of the opposite party no.2 is not traceless rather he has left the village at his own and has another wife. It is also contended that the informant opposite party no. 2 has not come out with a clean hand, he has already filed criminal cases earlier with respect to same transaction with a bit variable statements and one Title Suit No. 26 of 2004 seeking partition etc. has also been filed. It is also contended that one of the proposed accused Harinandan Mandal, brother of the petitioner, was murdered in the year 1990, but, informant opposite party no. 2 has made him also an accused in spite of knowing everything. My attention was drawn towards two complaint petitions bearing no. 1356/2003 filed on 26.09.2003 against Dip Narayan Mandal and two others and another complaint petition bearing no. 1353/2003 filed on the same date i.e. 26.09.2003 against the petitioner and two accused persons named in the complaint petition aforementioned. In the complaint petition no. 1353/2003, the opposite party no. 2 has stated that by - 3 - impersonating someone in place of his father, document was executed in favour of Harinandan Mandal, who is now dead and the transaction was brought into existence on 17.06.1981. Details whereof was known to the petitioner 6 months before he obtained copy of the same and also filed a petition to Circle Officer, not to mutate the name of the purchaser, on the basis thereof, in Para – 4, on the date of the execution of the document, the complainant was aged about 8 years and for last four years before 17.06.1981 his father was traceless, which are being taken to be true statement. Father of opposite party no. 2 was missing since middle of the year 1977 and complainant was born in the year 1973. Both these complaint petitions filed by opposite party no. 2 were dismissed respectively on 26.04.2004 and 01.05.2004 in absence of any evidence adduced by the complainant in spite of granting much adjournment. Opposite party no. 2, the informant in the instant case in spite of knowing fully well that Harinandan Mandal is dead. He has already mentioned in the complaint petition filed earlier also made him accused conspicuously maintained silence about the nature of deed inclusive of the date of execution and he further conceding not only filing of two complaint petitions by him earlier with respect to same transaction and there pendency and here he says that his father is traceless since 1976 and at the time of registration (17.06.1981), he was aged about 6 years means he was born in the year 1975. The statement regarding his age also varies from time to time. - 4 - All these facts are not disputed along with pendency of Civil Suit filed at the instance of opposite party no. 2 with respect to same land seeking partition and declaration etc. Undisputedly, the documents were brought into existence in the year 1981, Title Suit is also going on and controversy between the parties appears to be of civil nature after lapse of about 24 years. the opposite party no. 2 by concealing earlier filing and pendency of criminal cases which have subsequently been dismissed, brought this case just to put undue pressure and take undue advantage, if such case brought with mala fide intention, on concealment of material facts and also not with clean hands is permitted to continue, it will be nothing but, abuse of the process of law and wastage of precious judicious time, especially when, the dispute is of civil nature. In the result, this application stands allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)