IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23705 of 2008
1. Smt.Lakhpati Devi, wife of Yogendra Rai.
2. Yogendra Rai, son of Late Badri Rai.
3. Shailendra Rai, son of Late Badri Rai.
4. Rambriksha Rai, son of Ramchandra Rai.
All are resident of Village-Bagahi Kala, P.S. Basantpur,
District-Siwan.
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. Mostt. Paspati Kunwar, wife of Late Vishwanath Singh,
resident of village-Bagahi Kala, P.S. Basantpur,
District-Siwan.
----------------------------------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Irshad Ahmad Khan, Advocate.
——————————
4. 14.10.2011. Heard the parties.
The petitioners have filed this application, under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for
quashing the order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the court of
Sri S. Alam, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siwan, in
Complaint Case No.C-743 of 2008/Tr. No.4172 of 2008,
summoning the accused-petitioners, under Section 204 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, on inquiry, finding prima
facie case under Sections 420, 465, 471 and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code.
2
In brief, the case is that the complainant-
opposite party no.2, Mostt. Paspati Kunwar, filed the
complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.C-743
of 2008, with the contention that she is an illiterate and old
widow lady and has slight eye vision due to disease prior to
the date of occurrence. Her elder son, Vinod Singh, who is
in private service, with his family is residing at Delhi and
used to look after his family and also used to fulfill her
requirement of expenses of medicine and agricultural needs.
The further case of the complainant-opposite party no.2 is
that on 23.10.2007, the accused-petitioner no.2, Yogendra
Rai and accused-petitioner no.3 Shailendra Rai, came to her
house and told that the treatment of eyes is going on at the
cost of the Government at Basantpur Registry Katchhery.
On believing their statements, the complainant-opposite
party no.2 went there alongwith the accused-petitioner
nos.1, 2 and 3 and for admitting her, thumb impression on
blank paper and register was taken. After 2-2 ½ hours, they
told her that the doctor did not come today and treatment
will be held on the next day. Again, on 24.10.2007, the
complainant-opposite party no.2 was taken by the accused-
petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 on the pretext of her eyes treatment
3
at Basantpur Registry Katchhery and obtained her finger
prints, thumb impression and photographs at many places
and told her that on account of cancellation of programme
of Government doctor, her treatment is not possible and,
thereafter, they at the behest of the deed-writer, identifier,
witnesses and staff of the registry got the sale deed executed
from her regarding Plot No.763 of Khata No.29 by
committing fraud. The complainant-opposite party no.2 has
also alleged that she was not in need of money and she has
neither put her thumb impression in the presence of the
witness, accused-petitioner no.4, Rambriksh Rai and
accused no.5, Magister Rai, nor they had put their signature
on the draft of deed. As such, all the accused persons
including the petitioners, named in the complaint petition,
by hatching conspiracy got the sale deed executed in their
favour without payment of consideration money to the
complainant-opposite party no.2.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the complaint case is totally false
and the same has been filed with a view to harass the
accused-petitioners for illegal gain after execution of sale
deed. It has also been submitted that, in fact, the
4
complainant-opposite party no.2 herself executed the sale
deed on 24.10.2007 after receiving consideration amount as
detailed in the sale deed in favour of the accused-petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from
bare perusal of the complainant petition, the dispute appears
to be civil in nature.
On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears
that the complainant-opposite party no.2 made allegation
that by committing fraud, the accused-petitioners by
obtaining her thumb impression and pasting her
photographs got the sale deed executed after taking her to
Basantpur Registry Katchhery on the pretext of her eyes
treatment. From Annexure-‘2’ to this application, which is
the photocopy of the sale deed, it appears that opposite party
no.2 has executed the sale deed ion favour of petitioner
no.1, Lakhpati Devi, wife of petitioner no.2, Yogendra Rai,
and the sale deed has been properly registered by the
Registry Office. From the complaint petition, the dispute
appears to be civil in nature, which can be decided by the
civil court of competent jurisdiction.
Having regard to the facts and the circumstances
of the case setting in motion the criminal proceeding
5
through the impugned order summoning the accused
petitioners, appears to be an abuse of the process of the
court.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated
30.5.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.C-743 of 2008/ Tr.
No.4172 of 2008, by the court of Sri S. Alam, Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Siwan, with respect to the
petitioners, is hereby quashed and the application is
allowed.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)
P.S.