High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Rama Kant Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 19 April, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Rama Kant Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 19 April, 2011
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       CR.MISC. NO.20820 OF 2007
RAMA KANT PRASAD SINGH, ADVOCATE, SON OF LATE BACHCHOO PRASAD
SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGTE AND POLICE STATION MARANCHI, DISTRICT
PATNA. AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF PATLIPUTRA NAGAR, MAURYA VIHAR
COLONY, CHANAKYA PATH, KUMHARAR, PATNA-26, POLICE STATION
AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT AND TOWN PATNA ..........................PETITIONER
                                VERSUS
   1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
   2. RAM PADARATH SINGH, SON OF LATE SITA RAM SINGH
   3. SHEODANI MATHO, SON OF LATE NAGO MATHO
   4. SURESH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE BHOLA SINGH
   5. RAJNITI SINGH, SON OF LATE BALESHWAR SINGH
   2 TO 4 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MARANCHI, 5 IS RESIDENT OF
   VILLAGE MARANCHI TAJPUR TOLA, POLICE STTION MARANCHI, DISTRICT
   PATNA
   ................................................................................OPPOSITE PARTIES
                                *********

FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR.SATYENDRA NR. SINHA, ADVOCATE
FOR OP NOS. 2 TO 5 :- MR. SHIVNANDAN ROY, SR. ADVOCATE
FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY
********

12 19/04/2011 Heard Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated

16.11.2006 and the order of the Sessions Judge, Patna

dated 20.02.2007 by which the complaint petition has

been dismissed. From perusal of the order, it appears

that the petitioner who is the complainant is in

possession of the lands in question.

It is alleged that the Opposite Party No. 2 along

with one another person has got a deed executed in his

favour with respect to the said lands. The complaint

petition also discloses that there was a talk of

compromise between them which failed. The said sale
2

deed was executed in the year 1990. The petitioner has

not taken any steps to get the sale deed set aside by filing

a civil suit on the ground that it is a forged document.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

accused persons for the purpose of disturbing the

possession of the petitioner, insulted him and also

criminally intimidated him. The allegation as contained in

paragraph 6 of the complaint petition by itself does not

make out a case of criminal intimidation.

I see no illegally in the orders impugned. This

application is accordingly dismissed.

Anand                                        ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)