IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.42484 of 2008 ============================================= 1. Awadhesh Kumar Singh 2. Shiv Kumari Devi 3. Rajkumar Mahto 4. Lalan mahto 5. Chotelal Mahto .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Indradeo Yadav .... .... Opposite Party/s ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. B.N. Sinha ‘Suman’ For the State : Mrs. Sharda Kumari, A.P.P. 3 17-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. This application is filed for quashing the order dated 31.07.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rosera, Samastipur in C.R. No. 354 of 2006, T.R. No. 1584 of 2008. Some plots are sold by petitioners no.1, 2 and Asha Devi W/o late Mithilesh Singh and Smt. Ram Pari Devi in favour of Raj Kumar Mahto, Lalan Mahto and Chhote Lal Mahto. For the plots detailed in complaint petition, it is said that the same were transferred by accused no.1 in favour of complainant as Karta and Manager of accused nos.1 to 6 which are also transferred by above petitioners no. 1, 2 and others. Complaint petition is clear to the effect that for the sale deed executed by accused no.1 in favour of complainant, Complaint Case No. 49 of 2005 was filed and complainant was sent to jail. Capacity of accused no.1 as Karta and Manager of petitioners no.1, 2 and others is denied and sale deed is said executed in their own capacity in favour of petitioners no. 3, 4 and 5. Accused no. 3 to 6 including petitioners are descendant of recorded rayat of disputed plots. Referring above circumstances, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the controversy in between the parties cannot be decided in Criminal Court rather it is purely the matter of competent Civil Court. Though the learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 opposes the contention but failed to connect as to how Braj Bhushan Prasad Singh was Karta and Manager of accused no. 3 to 6. In my opinion also matter in controversy is purely of civil nature to be decided by competent Civil Court. Fixing criminal liability keeping pending of the proceeding is nothing more than misuse of processes of the Criminal Court. Under the above circumstances, the quashing petition is allowed and the order dated 31.07.2006 passed by the J.M., Ist Class, Rosera, Samastipur in C.R. Case No. 354 of 2006, T.R. No. 1584 of 2008 is hereby set aside and the prosecution against the petitioners is also quashed. Shailendra Bhushan Prasad/- (Mandhata Singh, J.)