IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10264 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Satyendra Yadav son of late Jagarna Yadav, 2. Lallu Yadav son of late Dhaneshwar Yadav, 3. Tapeshwar Yada son of Ramdeo Yadav, 4. Balendra Yadav son of Chaitan Yadav, 5. Smt. Lakho Devi wife of Rameshwar Yadav, 6. Smt. Uttama Devi wife of Madan Yadav, 7. Tapeshwar Yadav son of late Shankar Yadav, all resident of village- Barheta Tola Ahir Bigha, P.S. Deo, District-Aurangabad, 8. Smt. Parwati Devi alias Smt. Parwatia Devi, wife of Bigan Yadav, 9. Gobardhan Yadav son of Shorai Yadav, both resident of village- Murarpur, P.S.-Bhibra, District-Aurangabad, 10. Bhola Yadav son of Ramchandra Yadav, resident of village- Turkawara, P.S.-Dhibra, District-Aurangabad, 11. Rajdeo Yadav son of late Mahang Yadav, 12. Ramgati Yadav son of late Surajdeo Yadav, 13. Kamla Kuer alias Most. Kamla wife of late Laxman Yadav, all resident of village- Bela, P.S.-Kutumba, District- Aurangabad & 14. Balkeshwar Yadav son of late Chaita Yadav, resident of village-Barheta Tola- Ahir Bigha, P.S.-Deo, District- Aurangabad, .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Ram Narayan Yadav, son of Ram Sharan Yadav, resident of village- Barheta Tola Ahir Bigha, P.S.-Deo, District- Aurangabad .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manish Kumar No.3, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Kamlendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gopesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER
5/ 23-04-2012 Heard the parties.
The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated
13.01.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad,
in Deo P.S. Case No.52 of 2008, by which cognizance has been
taken under sections 379, 420, 427, 461, 504, 323, 147, 149 Indian
2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10264 of 2009 (5) dt.23-04-2012
The case of the complainant is that his father had
derived certain piece of land on the basis of a gift in the year 1948
and 1952 but he learnt that the accused persons were in the
process of executing sale deeds by misappropriating the said land.
He tried to reason with the accused persons along with some
witnesses but they refused to listen to the complainant. He then
sent information to his brothers to bring the land documents and
money on an appointed day at the Registry Office. When the
complainant’s brother arrived along with the document and
money, once again they tried to impress upon the accused persons
not to execute the sale deed but they were adamant despite they
having been shown the valid documents by the complainant. In
course of discussion, the accused persons allegedly snatched the
documents and tore up the same and also committed theft of
money that had been brought by the Complainant’s brother.
The investigation of the case proceeded at the end of
which final report was submitted since during investigation it
transpired that the accused persons were not transacting the land
which had been derived on the basis of the gift deed. Disagreeing
with the same, the Magistrate took cognizance in the matter.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that
the parties are agnates and the present case has been instituted by
the Complainant to cause obstruction to the assertion of the
petitioners’ right over the land legally possessed by them. Further
submission is that during investigation the police had found the
allegation of theft and snatching of document false and, therefore,
there is no justification for proceeding with the present complaint.
On the other hand, counsel for the complainant
submits that the accused persons have committed a wrong in
3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10264 of 2009 (5) dt.23-04-2012
executing the sale deed of land legally derived by him.
On going through the complaint, I find that there is
no allegation that the petitioners, in fact, had executed any sale
deed even though during investigation the police had found that
the accused persons had executed the sale deed, but of land which
had belonged to them. Evidently, the complaint is based on a civil
dispute giving rise to certain acts of theft and assault having been
committed which appears improbable in the background facts of
In my view, the present complaint has been filed to
settle a score which should have been determined by a Civil Court
of competent jurisdiction.
Hence, the entire proceeding including the order
dated 13.01.2009, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Aurangabad, in Deo P.S. Case No.52 of 2008 is hereby quashed.
Application stands allowed.
(Anjana Prakash, J)