IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12829 of 2008 1. DEO PRAKASH 2. RAJU KUMAR SON OF DEO PRAKASH 3. PINKU KUMAR SON OF DEO PRAKASH 4. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – NEW AREA NAWADAH, P.S. NAWADAH TOWN, DIST. NAWADAH. ------ PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RUD RESHWAR PRASAD GRIYAGEY, SON OF LATE VISHNU PRASAD, ADVOCATE JUSTICE GRIYAGEY COMPLEX, KUTCHEHRI ROAD, VIJAY BAZAR, NAWADAH MARKET, P.S. NAWADAH TOWN, DISTT. NAWADAH. ------ OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 4. 29.4.2011 The petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order dated 22.2.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawadah, in Case No. C761 of 2004/Tr. No. 68 of 2008 by which it has refused to discharge the petitioner. By an order dated 28.6.2010, notices were issued to the Opposite Party No. 2 and despite receipt of notices, he has not chosen to appear before this Court. It has been submitted that the petitioners are the tenant of the Opposite Party No. 2. It has further been submitted that there is a title suit pending between the parties with regard to the tenancy rights of the petitioner. In fact, the Complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 has filed eviction suit No. 158 of 2004 for vacating the shop and in the meanwhile the present complaint has been filed so that the dispute can be settled expeditiously. On going through the documents annexed here, I am convinced that the complaint is completely frivolous even 2 though the allegations of theft and firing are mentioned in the same it appears superfluous, exaggerated in the background of tenancy dispute between the parties. In the result, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding of Case No. C761 of 2004/Tr. No. 68 of 2008 including the order dated 22.2.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawada, is hereby quashed. The application stands allowed. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)