IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1703 of 2009 Deepak Kumar Singh s/o Late Ramanuz Prasad Singh, resident of village- Madrauhi, P.S. Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Gaytri Devi w/o Sri Devendra Singh, 3. Keshri Pd. Singh @ Thelwa, S/o Devendra Singh, 4. Chandeshwari Pd singh, S/o Govind Pd Singh, All resident of village – Madrauhi, P.S. Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur. 5. Madan Pd. Das s/o Swaroop Lal Das, resident of village- Bhawanipur, P.S. Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur. … Opp. Parties. ----- For the petitioner :Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh No.2, Adv. For the State :Dr. Rabindra Kumar, APP. ----------- 2. 28.11.2011 The son of the complainant has preferred this revision application against the order dated 11.9.2009 passed by the learned SDJM, Naugachhiya in Complaint Case No. 283 of 2002 by which the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 5 have been discharged under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. It appears that the father of the petitioner filed a complaint case No. 283 of 2002 alleging therein that the complainant had purchased some land measuring 1 acre, 26 decimals by registered sale deed dated 27.11.1971 from Bhola Prasad Singh in the name of his wife Laxmi Devi @ Gaytri Devi, mutation 2 was made and rent receipts were issued to the complainant. But on 3.7.2000 accused persons stood on behalf of Gayatri Devi and her husband executed a sale deed in favour of them. Opposite party no. 3 stood her mother in place of wife of the complainant and opposite party no. 4 became Ramanuj Pd. Singh in place of complainant and executed the sale deed opposite party no. 5 became the witness of the sale deed. It has been alleged that the complainant went to the Karmchari for rent receipt then he came to know about the misdeed of the accused. After enquiry cognizance was taken against accused for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 471 I.P.C. on 13.7.2033 and accordingly summons were issued on the opposite parties, the appearance of opposite parties completed on 7.2.2009 and the date fixed for evidence before charge was 6.3.2009. On 29.6.2009 the petitioner was present and appeared in the court because the original complainant already died and the next date 5.8.2009 was fixed for the evidence before the charge. The last date fixed for charge was 11.9.2009 on that very date a petition for adjournment was filed on the ground of illness 3 but it was rejected without giving further opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. Learned counsel for the State submits that the case appears to be of a civil nature. More over, the complaint case was filed in the year 2002 and the learned court below has found that the case has been lingering and the accused were being harassed at the instance of the complainant, as such no further adjournment was granted for adducing evidence. The evidence was closed and the accused have been discharged from the charge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and on perusal of material on record it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the State is correct. It appears that sufficient time has been granted to the complainant to adduce evidence but the complainant has been seeking time one after another date and lastly a prayer for adjournment has been rejected and the evidence has been closed finding no material against the accused and they have been discharged from the charge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. 4 Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)