CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.11211 OF 2006 In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1. SHAKILA KHATOON, wife of Harun Rashid, resident of village – Rampur, P.O. – Bathua Bazar, P.S. – Phulwariya, District – Gopalganj. 2. Amirul Hoda, son of Late Jainul Haque 3. Jamila Khatoon, wife of Late Sheikh Kamruddin 4. Akila Khatoon, wife of Amirul Hoda 5. Nasibul Hoda, son of Amirul Hoda 6. Sabrul Hoda, son of Amrul Hoda Petitioner nos. 2 to 6 are residents of village – Amwa Bijaypur, P.S. – Kuchaikote, District – Gopalganj. 7. Harun Rashid, son of Ainul Haque, resident of village – Rampur, P.O. – Bathua Bazar, P.S. – Phulwariya, District – Gopalganj. ---------------Appellant) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Anwar Alam, son of late Kamruddin Resident at Amwa, Bijaypur, P.S. – Kuchaikote, District – Gopalganj. ----------Opposite Parties. For the petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastav, Adv. For the Opp. Party no.2 : Mr. Satish Kr. Sinha, Adv. Mr. S. Rahman, Adv. For the State : Mr. Atul Chandra, APP ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ******* Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 28.01.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 1934/2001 Tr. No. 1114/2002, taking cognizance for the offence under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and order dated 16.11.2005 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) - 2 - Gopalganj, dismissing Criminal Revision No. 101/2002/19/2005. 3. Undisputedly, the complainant opposite party no.2 has filed the complaint case with assertions that there is a will in his favour with respect to certain lands including subject matter of the proceeding here which subsequently stands covered in a registered deed of gift in favour of some of the accused persons, when it came to knowledge of the complainant on his persuasion initially the accused persons agreed to execute a deed of relinquishment in his favour but finally refused. After recording statement of complainant and witnesses on inquiry, the court below took cognizance which practically stands affirmed by a Revisional Court who dismissed the Revision as not maintainable, giving rise to instant application here. 4. After some arguments and cross arguments, members of the Bar are in agreement that effective remedy to decide the controversy between the parties is civil court and averments made in the complaint petition does not attract commission of any criminal offence. It is further pointed out that one Title Suit No. 446/2000 is already pending, wherein subject matter of the proceeding is also there. Thus, learned counsels are further in agreement that criminal proceeding before the court below must not proceed at the same time, right of either of the parties to agitate their respective claims and get the same adjudicated by the competent civil court do not affected. 5. With the above observation, proceeding before - 3 - the court below in Complaint Case is hereby quashed, the parties are at liberty to agitate their claims before the civil court. Patna High Court Date : The 30th September 2010 Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)