IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30727 of 2007 LAKSHMAN PRASAD GUPTA son of late Ram Pujan Sah, resident of village- Tenduni (Bikramganj) Laxmi Narayan Market, Sasaram Road, P. O.- Tenduni, P. S. – Bikramganj, Distt. Rohtas. … Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ajay Kumar son of Shri Ashok Prasad, resident of village + P.O. Tenduni, P. S. Bikramganj, District Rohtas. … opp. Parties. ----------- 4 25.08.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the complainant/opposite party no. 2. A complaint has been filed at the instance of complainant, opposite party no. 2 taking a plea that this Court in CWJC No. 2356 of 2001 (Ajay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) had made certain observations. It appears that there is a dispute between the petitioner, landlord and the complainant, opposite party no. 2 who is a tenant. The tenant, opposite party no. 2 infact was evicted from the premises of the petitioner which however was found to be wholly unauthorized by this Court in a writ application, C.W.J.C. No. 2536 of 2001 filed by tenant opposite party no. 2 of this case wherein the petitioner the landlord was 2 impleaded as Respondent no. 5. This Court by an order dated 19.8.2005 had given certain relief to the opposite party no. 2 as would be apparent from the following extract of the aforesaid order:- “7. At the hearing I called upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent no. 5 to show me any provision of law in terms whereof the Respondent no. 2 could pass such an order i.e. an order directing removal of a tenant from his tenancy at the behest of the landlord thereof even for the purpose of effecting repairs thereto. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Respondent no. 5, after having an adjournment for one day to look into the law, fairly conceded that there is no provision of law in terms whereof the Respondent no. 2 could pass the second order dated 12th January, 2001, in terms whereof the petitioner was evicted illegally from the shop room in question. In such view of the matter, the action complained of, being the creation of the order dated 12th January 2001, is an ultra vires act on the part of the Respondent no. 2 for he acted beyond his competence bestowed by law. (8) By reason of such act on the part of the Respondent no. 2, the petitioner has suffered. The respondent no. 2 is accordingly liable to compensate the petitioner personally. At the same time, the Respondent no. 2 acted at the behest of the Respondent no. 5 and the Respondent no. 5 himself took 3 advantage of that illegal order or the ultra vires action of the part of the Respondent no. 2, and accordingly is equally liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss and damages caused to the petitioner. 9. In the writ jurisdiction it will not be possible for me to ascertain the exact nature of damages suffered by the petitioner and accordingly it would not be possible for me to determine the exact amount of compensation which the Respondents no. 2 and 5 are liable to pay to the petitioner. However, inasmuch as, because of such action on the part of the Respondents no. 2 and 5, the petitioner has suffered at least mental agony, to that extent the damages suffered by the petitioner can be quantified and directed to be paid to the petitioner even in writ jurisdiction. I requested the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 as to what amount of compensation his client is agreeable to pay on account of mental agony caused to the petitioner by reason of such illegal actions on the part of the Respondents no. 2 & 5, to that the submission was about Rs.25,000/- . I was happy to note that the Respondent no. 5 has realized that he has done a grave injustice to the petitioner and accordingly he is agreeable to compensate the petitioner to the extent of at least Rs.25,000/- 10. In such view of the matter, I direct the Respondent no. 5 to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) as half of the compensation towards damages by way of mental agony suffered by the petitioner. The Respondent no. 2 is equally directed to pay a sum of 4 Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) to the petitioner on account of half of the compensation towards damages suffered by the petitioner for mental agony. The remaining damages, the petitioner shall be entitled to recover from the respondents no. 2 and 5 by filing an appropriate suit. 11. the Respondent-State is directed to ensure handing over possession of the shop room in question to the petitioner forthwith in the same condition as it was lying at the time of taking possession thereof, if not already possession thereof has been handed over to the petitioner and to file an affidavit to that effect through the District Magistrate of the District concerned within a period of one month from today. 12. The Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar is directed to look into the conduct of the Respondent No. 2 in relation to the instant matter and to take appropriate departmental proceedings against the Respondent no. 2. In the event, the decision is not to initiate such proceedings, the Secretary Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department shall file an affidavit to that effect within one month from today. (13) Copies of the above affidavit shall be handed over to the learned Advocate on record for the petitioner simultaneously within filing of the same, and although I am disposing of this writ petition by this order, I am permitting the petitioner to apply to this Court for reviving the writ petition in the event the possession is either not handed over or departmental proceeding is not initiated. 14. The writ petition is 5 accordingly disposed of. 15. This order will not prevent the petitioner from initiating any other proceedings, if according to the petitioner, any of the respondents has violated any other provision of law.” (Underlining for emphasis) As a matter of fact, the dispute between the petitioner, landlord and the complainant, tenant came to an end after positive directions given by this Court and the possession of the tenanted premises was also admittedly restored to complainant, opposite party no. 2 in addition to payment of Rs. 40,000/- by way of agreed amount of damages for the mental agony suffered by him for his unauthorized eviction, leaving him to recover rest of damages by filing an appropriate suit against the petitioner (landlord) and the sub-divisional magistrate who had got the petitioner evicted from the tenanted premises. That, however, did not satisfy the complainant opposite party no. 2 and in the petition of complaint dated 21.2.2006, the only reason for agitating the dispute of the year 2001, the date of occurrence being 8.2.2001 has been given in 6 paragraph nos. 22, 23 and 24 which reads as follows:- ^^ 22- ;g fd varrksxRok fnukad 19-8-005 dks lh. MCyw. t.s lh. la[;k & 2356@2001 es ekuuh; U;k;eqfrZ Jh ojhu ?kks’k dh ,dyihV }kjk vkns’k ikfjr dj fn;k x;k ftles vfHk;qDrks dks nk"s’kh djkj djrs gq, vfHk;qDr la[;k ,d ,oa 4 ij 20&20 gtkj :i;s dh vkfFkZd na.M yxk;k x;k ftldk Hkqxrku nksuks vfHk;qDr dj pqds gSa A 23- ;g fd ekuuh; U;k; ewfrZ us vius vkns’k ds ikjk la[;k&10 es {kfr iwfrZ gsrq l{ke U;k;ky; es nkok is”k djus dk funsZ”k fn;k rFkk ikjk la[;k 15 esa vfHk;qDrks ds fo:} dkuwu rksMus ds fy, naMkRed dkjokbZ djus dk vuqefr ns fn;k A 24. ;g fd vknS’k ds ckn ifjoknh vius fcekj HkkbZ dk bykt djkus lqjr pykx;k bl otg ls ifjokn nk;j ugha dj ldk vHkh dqN fnuk igus vk;k gS rks ifjokn nk;j jgk gS A** From the reading of the aforementioned three paragraphs it would appear that the complainant, opposite party no. 2 has a complete misunderstanding of the observations made in paragraph 10 and 15 of the order of the court dated 19.8.2005 passed in CWJC No. 2356 of 2001 wherein the complainant, opposite party no. 2 was directed to recover any damages by filing an appropriate civil suit. A complaint case is not a civil suit and therefore this Court holds that the entire proceedings including the impugned order taking cognizance in a 7 stale matter relating to the alleged occurrence of 8.2.2001 at the instance of complainant, opposite party no. 2 is wholly unsustainable in as much as the order of this Court dated 19.8.2005 could not have been utilized as a passport for launching criminal prosecution by the complainant opposite party no. 2 against the petitioner. The petitioner having been already punished both by way of payment of damages as also restoring the tenanted premises can not be subjected to criminal prosecution as the order for eviction was passed by a competent authority whose such order being found subsequently to be illegal was quashed by this Court with a further direction to initiate departmental proceeding against him for his misconduct in passing the order of eviction. That being so, entire criminal proceedings including the impugned order taking cognizance as against the petitioner is hereby quashed. It is however, made clear that anything said in this order shall not stand in the way of complainant, opposite party no. 8 2 in claiming any damages in a civil suit as was observed in order dated 19.8.2005 passed in CWJC No. 2356 of 2001. With the aforementioned observations, this application is allowed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)