IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44290 of 2008 1. Deo Chandra Jha. 2. Muni Chandra Jha, Both sons of Belai Jha. 3. Ram Shila Devi, Wife of Sri Deo Chandra Jha. 4. Jhalki Devi, Wife of Sri Muni Chandra Jha All resident of Village Mahinam, PS Bahera, District Darbhanga 5. Chandra Shekhar Rai, Son of Sri Mahandra Rai, Resident of Village Basuham, PS Bahera, District Darbhanga ---- Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Sipahi Rai, Son of Uchit Rai, Resident of Village Mahinam, PS Bahera, District Darbhanga ---- Opposite Parties ----------- 3 2.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite notices and that fact that Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 has been filed, nobody appears to oppose this application. A complaint was instituted which was later sent for execution of the First Information Report. It is said that in the complaint petition the prosecution case is that the petitioners had purchased the land along with the house belonging to the complainant by a sale deed dated 1.8.1994. At the stage of executing the sale deed, the petitioners had assured the complainant that he could remain in the house as long as he likes. It is alleged that between 1.8.1994 to 12.10.1995, the petitioners came to the house of the complainant and threw him out of the house. It may be noted here that no specific date of occurrence is mentioned in the complaint petition which has its obvious implications i.e. that the complaint petition has been filed on frivolous grounds. On investigation, the aforesaid complaint was found to be false and final form was submitted. Thereafter a protest petition was filed and after examining the complainant and the four other 2 witnesses, the Court took cognizance. The petitioners filed a revision application which was disposed of on 11.1.2001 by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge holding that the A.C.J.M. should take fresh look on the materials in the case and after perusing the Kewala executed by the complainant in favour of the petitioners, fresh orders should be passed. The A.C.J.M., Benipur, Darbhanga after considering the Kewala etc. held that no allegations are made out in the complaint case and dismissed the complaint case by order dated 22.11.2006. Against the order dated 22.11.2006 the complainant filed Cr. Revision No. 497 of 2006. The Court on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the protest-cum-complaint, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court comes to the conclusion that on the very face the facts made out in the complaint petition, the allegations are rather vague. The first ground for holding so, is that the complainant has not given the date or day of occurrence, much less the time when it is alleged that the petitioners came and allegedly threw the complainant out of his house. The second aspect of the matter is that the remedy of the complainant would lie by filing a suit for restitution of possession rather than by filing a criminal case if, he has been illegally removed from the house without an eviction suit. The third aspects of the matter is that once the complainant had sold his lands to the petitioners, then it is obvious that he could no longer be allowed to remain in the house and it is 3 submitted that the story that he has built up that the occurrence took over a period of one year in itself makes the case unbelievable. Considering all these three aspects of the matter, this Court finds that there is no justification in taking cognizance in case of this nature and in the facts indicated no offence is made out under Sections 420, 406 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The order dated 15.7.2008, passed in Revision Case No 497 of 2006 is quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)