IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.4861 of 2009 1. RAM NATH SINGH, S/O LATE JAI RAM SINGH 2. SUDARSHAN SINGH 3. BAIJNATH SINGH 4. KRISHNA SINGH ALL ARE SONS OF LATE RAMANUJ SINGH AND RESIDNETS OF VILLAGE KAB P.S. RANI TALAB, DISTRICT PATNA .. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM PRABODH SINGH, S/O LATE RAM DAHIN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KAB, P.S. RANI TALAB, DISTRICT PATNA .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** For the petitioners .. Mr. S.N. Choudhary, Adv. For the State .. Mr. D.P. Tiwary, A.P.P. For opposite party no. 2 .. Mr. Arbind Kr. Singh, Adv. **** /4/ 24.01.2011 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous application is filed for quashing the order, dated 30.09.2008, passed by Shri V.B. Mall, Additional District & Sessions Judge, X, Patna, in Cr. Rev. No. 679 of 2007 By which he has dismissed the Criminal Revision confirming the order, dated 25.07.2007, passed by Shri S.K. Upadhaya, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur, in Complaint Case No. 2 187© of 2007, by which the learned Magistrate has issued the summons against the petitioners after taking cognizance for offence under Sections 417, 323, 379 and 504 of the Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant is a retired school teacher and given some land which was purchased by him for local primary school on which the school is standing and to the east and south of the said school the rest of the land of the petitioners is vacant on which the petitioners in cultivating position. It is alleged that the accused persons under a conspiracy get released fund for additional construction in the school and it alleged that the accused persons pressurized the complainant to make available the extra land and it is further alleged that accused no. 1 to 4 got a forged and fabricated deed of gift and then it is alleged that the complainant filed a petition against the accused persons before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Paliganj, and a proceeding under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code was initiated and there is a litigation going on with the complainant and the accused 1 to 4 with regard to the disputed land and it is alleged that 3 on 07.03.2007 while the complainant was going through his land then saw the accused persons working over the land of the complainant and when the complainant protested then accused persons got excited and abused and assaulted and the accused Ram Nath Singh and Basudeo Mochhi snatch rupees one thousand and watch. On the complaint petition the complainant and his witness was examined on oath and after due consideration the process has been issued after taking cognizance. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that from the averment made in the petition, no offence is made out and it is out and out a civil dispute because the complainant is claiming right, title and possession over the land and the petitioners have donated the land to school and a pucca building of the school has already been constructed out of the Government’s fund and the complainant had already filed Title Suit no. 84 of 2007 against the petitioner with respect to the land in question. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party, however, raised a preliminary objection that against an order taking cognizance, the petitioner has preferred a 4 revision and now the second revision is barred and, hence, filed a criminal miscellaneous, which is not sustainable. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that even after revision has been dismissed a criminal miscellaneous is not barred and has placed reliance upon a decision reported in 2002(2) P.L.J.R., 520 (Ajay Kumar Rana & Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) where it has been held that second revision application is barred to the rider put under Section 397(3) of the Code, but, there is no rider for exercise of the inherent bar under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code as Section 482 is very wide and extra ordinary jurisdiction to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code to prevent abuse of the process of the Code or otherwise to secure the end of justice. 7. Hence, on the rival submissions of the parties the question for consideration whether the petitioner has made out a case for inviting the extra ordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Taking into consideration the entire allegation, on the face value of complaint, if no offence is made out, 5 at all, and then allowing the prosecution to continue apparently is an abuse of the process of the Court and, hence, in such a situation the Court may interfere in the extra ordinary jurisdiction in the interest of justice, as such, in such a situation even if the second revision is barred the Court may exercise it’s inherent jurisdiction to interfere. 9. Now coming to the allegation, there are two part of the allegation in the complaint petition, the first part it is alleged that donation of the land and allegation of some conspiracy in getting money and the second part of the complaint petition asserts about the abuse, assault, snatching of rupees one thousand and watch. However, at this stage, it is well settled that the Court is not required to go into the legal evidence nor required to appreciate the facts and circumstances or to look into the defence of the accused. 10. However, taking into consideration the fact that there is allegation that the accused persons entered on the said land asserted to be land of the petitioners and when the petitioners protested they were abused, assaulted and snatched of his money and watch. Hence, taking into 6 consideration the allegation, itself, a criminal offence is made out and when the criminal offence is made out then this Court, at this stage, can not appreciate or taking into consideration the defence of the accused and, hence, under the facts and circumstances the petitioners have not made any extra situation to interfere in the exercise of the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code when the offence has already been made by the Magistrate and the Revisional Court has rejected the revision affirming the order taking cognizance, hence, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order. 11. This criminal miscellaneous application is dismissed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)