IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28728 of 2007 Bala Mushar, Son of Late Bari Mushar, Resident of Village Harjipur, P.S. Belaon, District Kaimur (Bhabua). -------- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Ashok Kumar Pandey @ Munna Pandey, Son of Vijay Shanker Pandey. 3. Anil Kumar Pandey, Son of Vijay Shanker Pandey. 4. Vijay Shanker Pandey, Son of Phulan Pandey. All residents of Village Kharenda, P.S. Belaon, District Kaimur (Bhabua). ---------- Opposite Parties ----------- 6 16.2.2010 Heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The two impugned orders dated 14.2.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabua in connection with Complaint Case No. 328 of 2005 as also the revisional order dated 20.4.2007 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kaimur have been sought to be assailed on the ground that the dismissal of the complaint was for reasons unknown to law. Mr. Mahto has submitted that on bare perusal of the complaint, it could be made out that the petitioner, a member of scheduled caste, was subjected to inhuman treatment while he was trying to take possession of the land which was settled with him after the same had been surrendered to the Bhudan Committee. 2 Normally, dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 has to be based on the valid appreciation of the material on record and one of such appreciation would be on the basis of the statements of the witnesses recorded in course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. In the present case, to the court question, all the three witnesses have unequivocally stated that they have filed this complaint case primarily for recovery of the land. This would be clear from the statement of one of the three witnesses, namely, Panchu Mushar, who has stated as follows:- ^^&&&&& tks tehu ge yksxksa dks feyh gS ml ij vfHk;qDrksa us dCtk ugha fn;kA vfHk;qDrx.k ;qDr tehu dks viuk dg jgs gSA ;g dkxt ykyjke ls feyk gSA ge yksx esa ;g Hkh fey tkuh pfg,A ge yksx lkspdj ;g eqdnek fd, gSa fd bl eqdnesa ls U;k;ky; }kjk tehu feysxhA** If on the basis of such statement recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., the court below refused to take cognizance and dismissed the complaint, no flaw can be found therein, inasmuch as, a criminal case cannot be made a substitute for agitating a claim enforceable by civil court. 3 This Court, therefore, does not find any flaw in the impugned order dismissing complaint as also the revisional order affirming such order. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)