{"id":193248,"date":"2011-11-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011"},"modified":"2018-03-01T03:55:10","modified_gmt":"2018-02-28T22:25:10","slug":"kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Kapil Ram vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
Kapil Ram vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 November, 2011<\/div>\n
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                            Criminal Miscellaneous No.25664 of 2009\n                                             Kapil Ram\n                                                Versus\n                                       State Of Bihar & Anr\n                                                  with\n                            Criminal Miscellaneous No.37026 of 2009\n                                          Kapil Ram & Ors\n                                                Versus\n                                       State Of Bihar & Anr\n                                               --------\n<\/pre>\n
                          For the petitioners: Mr Vidyasagar, Advocate
\n                                                Mr Onkar Nath, Advocate
\n                      For the Opposite party no.2: Mr A.B. Ojha, Advocate
\n                                                  Mr Bharat Bhushan, Advocate
\n                       For the State:             Mr Dr. Mayanand Jha, Advocate\n<\/p>\n
                                              ———-\n<\/p>\n
6   3.11.2011                   Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009 has been filed by<\/p>\n
                the petitioner- Kapil Ram, who is an accused in Complaint<\/p>\n
                case no. 378C\/2008, for quashing order dated 13.8.2008<\/p>\n
                passed by Sri K.M. Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,<\/p>\n
                Buxar in the above stated Complaint case no. 378C\/2008,<\/p>\n
                Trial no.1275\/2008 by which and whereunder the learned<\/p>\n
                Magistrate having found prima facie case under sections<\/p>\n
                420,467, 468, 474, 120B of the IPC against the petitioner and<\/p>\n
                others ordered to issue summons upon him and others for their<\/p>\n
                appearance.\n<\/p>\n
                                 2. Cr. Misc. No. 37026\/2009 has been filed<\/p>\n
                by the petitioners- Kapil Ram, Deomuni Ram and Ram Niwas<\/p>\n
                Ram who are accused in Complaint case no. 379C\/2008 for<\/p>\n
                quashing order dated 16.10.2008 passed by Sri A.K.<\/p>\n
                Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Buxar in the above<\/p>\n
                stated Complaint case no. 379C\/2008 by which and<\/p>\n
                whereunder the learned Magistrate having found prima facie
\n                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
case under sections 147 and 379 of the IPC ordered to issue<\/p>\n
summons upon the petitioners for facing trial.<\/p>\n
               3. In Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009 this court<\/p>\n
ordered to issue notice upon opposite party no.2 of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid criminal misc. case and in response thereto,<\/p>\n
opposite party no.2 made his appearance through his counsel<\/p>\n
and after that vide order dated 12.7.2011 this court ordered to<\/p>\n
put up Cr. Misc. No. 37026\/2009 along with Cr. Misc. No.<\/p>\n
25664\/2009 and accordingly, both the above stated criminal<\/p>\n
misc. cases were heard together with the consent of both the<\/p>\n
parties.\n<\/p>\n
                4. Opposite party no.2, namely, Yogendra<\/p>\n
Nath Tiwary filed Complaint case no. 378C\/2008 against the<\/p>\n
petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009 and four other<\/p>\n
accused persons in the court of learned Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Buxar alleging therein that his wife, namely,<\/p>\n
Dulhin @ Urmila Devi had purchased plot no.2 of khata no.<\/p>\n
19 area 59 decimal lands and 1 acre 4 decimal lands by two<\/p>\n
registered sale deeds dated 21.10.2000 and 27.1.2001<\/p>\n
respectively from Gopal Tiwary son of Singhasan Tiwary of<\/p>\n
village Rajdiha and came in possession of the above stated<\/p>\n
lands but the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009<\/p>\n
purchased 81 decimal of lands of plot no.2 of khata no. 19<\/p>\n
from one Late Ganesh Tiwary son of Anant Tiwary of village<\/p>\n
Rajdiha having knowledge of this fact that wife of the
\n                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
complainant had already purchased the entire lands of plot<\/p>\n
no.2 of khata no. 19. Since the witnesses and identifiers on<\/p>\n
the sale deeds of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009<\/p>\n
were co-villager of the complainant- Yogendra Nath Tiwary,<\/p>\n
the above stated petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009 was<\/p>\n
fully aware about the sale deeds of the wife of complainant<\/p>\n
but in spite of that the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009<\/p>\n
and other accused of Complaint case no. 378C\/2008 got<\/p>\n
prepared forged document to cheat and damage the<\/p>\n
complainant’s wife and they also used the said document for<\/p>\n
getting name of the petitioner-Kapil Ram mutated in circle<\/p>\n
office. Furthermore, the complainant (Opposite party no.2)<\/p>\n
alleged that on 26.2.2003, petitioner- Kapil Ram got executed<\/p>\n
23 decimal lands of plot no.2 appertaining to khata no. 19<\/p>\n
from Gopalji Tiwary, the vendor of the complainant’s wife,<\/p>\n
with an intent to cheat complainant’s wife.<\/p>\n
                  5. The learned Magistrate having conducted<\/p>\n
an enquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C passed the<\/p>\n
impugned order dated 13.8.2008 in the manner as stated<\/p>\n
above.\n<\/p>\n
                  6. The petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.<\/p>\n
25664\/2009 challenged the impugned order dated 13.8.2008<\/p>\n
by filing the above stated Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009.<\/p>\n
                  7. Opposite party no.2 in Cr. Misc. No.<\/p>\n
37026\/2009 filed Complaint case no. 379C\/2008 against the
\n                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioners in Cr. Misc. no. 37026\/2009 and twenty unknown<\/p>\n
persons in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Buxar alleging therein that on 23.4.2008 the aforesaid<\/p>\n
petitioners along with unknown persons having armed with<\/p>\n
fire arms and other lethal weapons came on the purchased<\/p>\n
lands of complainant’s wife and forcibly cut wheat crops<\/p>\n
from the aforesaid purchased lands of complainant’s wife.<\/p>\n
The above stated complaint petition was enquired by the<\/p>\n
learned Judicial Magistrate, Buxar and having found prima<\/p>\n
facie case under sections 147 and 379 of the IPC ordered to<\/p>\n
issue summons upon the above stated petitioners vide order<\/p>\n
dated 16.10.2008 which is under challenge in Cr. Misc. no.<\/p>\n
37026\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
                8. Since the above stated Complaint case no.<\/p>\n
379C\/2008 is an offshoot of Complaint case no. 378C\/2008,<\/p>\n
this court thought it proper to hear Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009<\/p>\n
and Cr. Misc. no. 37026\/2009 together and accordingly, a<\/p>\n
common order is being passed in both the above stated<\/p>\n
criminal misc. cases.\n<\/p>\n
                9. During the pendency of the above stated<\/p>\n
Cr. Misc. no. 25664\/2009, the petitioner in the aforesaid<\/p>\n
criminal misc. case filed an interim application for stay of<\/p>\n
further proceeding of Complaint case no. 378C\/2008, Trial<\/p>\n
no. 1275\/2008 pending in the court of Sri K.M. Tiwary,<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate, Buxar and accordingly, above stated I.A.
\n                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
petition is also being disposed off by the present common<\/p>\n
order.\n<\/p>\n
               10.    Learned    counsel,   Sri   Vidyasagar,<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the criminal<\/p>\n
misc. cases, submits that the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.<\/p>\n
25664\/2009 purchased the lands in question in good faith<\/p>\n
without having knowledge of so-called sale deeds of<\/p>\n
complaint’s wife and when he came to know about the sale<\/p>\n
deeds of complainant’s wife, he enquired from his vendor,<\/p>\n
namely, Gopal Tiwary and after that his vendor namely,<\/p>\n
Gopal Tiwary executed a deed of agreement in his favour<\/p>\n
and according to the aforesaid deed of agreement dated<\/p>\n
19.7.2009, the aforesaid vendor of the petitioner in Cr. Misc.<\/p>\n
No. 25664\/2009 executed another sale deed dated 10.6.2009<\/p>\n
in respect of plot no. 1260 khata no. 54 area 34 decimals in<\/p>\n
place of plot no. 2 of khata no. 19 area 23 decimals and<\/p>\n
accordingly, the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009 has<\/p>\n
already relinquished his claim in respect of plot no. 2 of<\/p>\n
khata no. 19 area 23 decimals. It is contended by him that the<\/p>\n
aforesaid circumstances clearly suggest this fact that the<\/p>\n
petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009 had no knowledge<\/p>\n
about the so-called sale deed of complainant’s wife and he<\/p>\n
had no intention either to cheat the complainant or his wife.<\/p>\n
It is further contended by him that so far as rest area of plot<\/p>\n
no. 2 of khata no. 19 situated at village Karuaz police station
\n                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
Koran sarai district Buxar is concerned, the petitioner in Cr.<\/p>\n
Misc. No. 25664\/2009 had purchased the aforesaid land from<\/p>\n
one Late Ganesh Tiwary through registered sale deed dated<\/p>\n
26.2.2003 for valid consideration. It is also contended by him<\/p>\n
that the aforesaid Late Ganesh Tiwary had purchased 81<\/p>\n
decimal lands out of plot no. 2 of khata no. 19 through<\/p>\n
registered sale deed dated 15.1.2001 from Mostt. Kausaliya<\/p>\n
Devi w\/o late Singhasan Tiwary and after aforesaid purchase,<\/p>\n
the aforesaid Late Ganesh Tiwary came in possession of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid land and subsequently, he transferred the said land<\/p>\n
in favour of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009 on<\/p>\n
26.2.2003 after taking consideration money. It is further<\/p>\n
contended by him that the very face of the complaint case<\/p>\n
does not disclose any offence of cheating and, at best, it is a<\/p>\n
case of bona fide land dispute. So, the continuance of<\/p>\n
Complaint case no. 378C\/2008 is nothing but only an abuse<\/p>\n
of process of the law. It is also contended by him that the<\/p>\n
complainant’s wife had already filed title suit bearing Title<\/p>\n
Suit no. 108\/2007 in the court of learned Sub Judge I, Buxar<\/p>\n
in respect of disputed plot and, therefore, civil remedy is<\/p>\n
available to the complainant and so, two proceedings can not<\/p>\n
be allowed to proceed simultaneously.\n<\/p>\n
                 11. Learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioners further submits that after purchasing the aforesaid<\/p>\n
lands they harvested paddy crops on purchased lands but the
\n                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
complainant (opposite party no.2) with intent to lay pressure<\/p>\n
upon the petitioners filed Complaint case no. 379C\/2008<\/p>\n
which can easily be said offshoot of the above stated<\/p>\n
litigation and, therefore, continuance of the proceeding of<\/p>\n
Complaint case no. 379C\/2008 is, too, nothing but only an<\/p>\n
abuse of process of the court. It is further contended by him<\/p>\n
that when the dispute arose between the parties police visited<\/p>\n
the disputed land and found that wheat crops had been<\/p>\n
harvested by the petitioners. It is also pointed out by him that<\/p>\n
an advocate commissioner also visited disputed land and<\/p>\n
found that wheat crops had been harvested by the petitioners<\/p>\n
though the learned Sub Judge, Buxar refused to grant interim<\/p>\n
injunction in favour of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                12. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers<\/p>\n
several decisions in support of his contentions which are as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                      (i) 2007 (Suppl.) PLJR 229 in which<\/p>\n
this court has held that if the creation of the alleged forged<\/p>\n
and fabricated document to defeat the claim of the<\/p>\n
complainant is already subject matter in the partition suit<\/p>\n
pending between the parties, the continuance of criminal case<\/p>\n
will not serve any purpose and after decision of the suit the<\/p>\n
complainant will be at liberty to take action according to law<\/p>\n
and the dispute is of civil nature and so, its continuance<\/p>\n
would be an abuse of process of the court.\n<\/p>\n
                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
                        (ii) 2000 (4) PLJR 44 in which it has<\/p>\n
been held by this court that criminal proceeding launched on<\/p>\n
the same cause of action in which civil suit is pending and if<\/p>\n
the allegations do not constitute criminal offence rather<\/p>\n
allegations are of civil in nature; the very initiation of<\/p>\n
criminal proceeding is an abuse of process of the court.<\/p>\n
                         (iii) 2000 (2) PLJR 243 in which it has<\/p>\n
been held by this court that if allegations are of civil nature<\/p>\n
and it could be decided by the competent civil court,<\/p>\n
summons to the accused in a complaint case is an abuse of<\/p>\n
process of the criminal court.\n<\/p>\n
                         (iv) 2011 (1) PLJR 354 in which it<\/p>\n
has been held by this court that in absence of any dishonest<\/p>\n
inducement to deliver any property to any person, no case is<\/p>\n
made out under section 420 and to bring action punishable<\/p>\n
under the Indian Penal Code, it has first to be ascertained<\/p>\n
whether an offence as classified in section 2(n) is made out.<\/p>\n
                        (v) 2000 (1) PLJR 51 in which it has<\/p>\n
been held by this court that judicial process should not be an<\/p>\n
instrument of oppression or needless harassment and even if<\/p>\n
the complaint petition discloses an offence but the materials<\/p>\n
show that the same is vexatious one and has been filed just to<\/p>\n
harass and humiliate the accused persons, the continuance of<\/p>\n
the prosecution can not be permitted.\n<\/p>\n
                  13.     On the strength of the aforesaid
\n                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
decisions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both<\/p>\n
the above stated complaint cases have been brought by the<\/p>\n
complainant on account of land dispute just to lay pressure<\/p>\n
upon the petitioners so that they may relinquish their claim in<\/p>\n
respect of the plot no.2 khata no. 19 area 81 decimals which<\/p>\n
has been purchased by the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.<\/p>\n
25664\/2009 from Late Singhasan Tiwary who had purchased<\/p>\n
the said land from mother of Gopal Tiwary, so-called vendor<\/p>\n
complainant’s   wife,   much    prior   to   the   purchase   of<\/p>\n
complainant’s wife.\n<\/p>\n
                   14. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri<\/p>\n
A.B. Ojha, appearing for the opposite party no.2, supported the<\/p>\n
impugned order and submitted that it is an admitted position<\/p>\n
that wife of opposite party no.2 had already purchased entire<\/p>\n
area of plot no.2 of khata no.19 from Gopal Tiwary and after<\/p>\n
the above stated purchase, the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.<\/p>\n
25664\/2009 purchased the said land from Gopal Tiwary. It is<\/p>\n
further contended by him that the vendor of Late Ganesh<\/p>\n
Tiwary had no right to transfer the land in question in his<\/p>\n
favour because admittedly, she was the second wife of<\/p>\n
Singhasan Tiwary who had solemnized his second marriage in<\/p>\n
the life time of his first wife. So, even if, the above stated<\/p>\n
Ganesh Tiwary had purchased the aforesaid land from<\/p>\n
Kausaliya Devi, the second wife of Singhasan Tiwary, then<\/p>\n
also, the aforesaid transfer was illegal and furthermore, the
\n                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 25664\/2009 was fully aware of this<\/p>\n
fact that his vendor Gopal Tiwary had already transferred the<\/p>\n
lands in question in favour of complainant’s wife but in spite<\/p>\n
of having knowledge of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner in Cr.<\/p>\n
Misc. No. 25664\/2009 purchased the lands in question from the<\/p>\n
aforesaid Ganesh Tiwary as well as Gopal Tiwary with an<\/p>\n
intent to make false claim and to damage and cheat the<\/p>\n
complainant’s wife and, therefore, a clear cut case under<\/p>\n
section 420 and other provisions of the IPC is made out against<\/p>\n
the petitioner and other accused of Complaint case no.<\/p>\n
378C\/2008. It is further contended by him that mere pendency<\/p>\n
of civil suit does not preclude complainant to launch criminal<\/p>\n
prosecution against the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009<\/p>\n
and other accused of Complaint case no. 378C\/2008. It is<\/p>\n
further contended by him that the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.<\/p>\n
25664\/2009 had filed injunction petition before the learned Sub<\/p>\n
Judge I, Buxar in Title Suit no. 108\/2007 but he could not<\/p>\n
succeed to get any relief upto the appellate court. It is further<\/p>\n
contended by him that the report submitted by the advocate<\/p>\n
commissioner in Title suit no.108\/2007 as well as the report<\/p>\n
submitted by the police do not make any difference because the<\/p>\n
aforesaid reports would not be       read in the above stated<\/p>\n
complaint case.\n<\/p>\n
                   15. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2<\/p>\n
placed reliance on the following decisions which are as
\n                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                        i) 2000 Cr. LJ 1487 in which the Hon’ ble<\/p>\n
 Supreme Court held that the if allegations levelled in<\/p>\n
 complaint on the face of it disclose offence alleged, the<\/p>\n
 complaint can not be quashed merely on the ground that civil<\/p>\n
 remedy is available.\n<\/p>\n
                        ii) 2005 Cr. LJ 1838 in which the Hon’<\/p>\n
 ble Andhra Pradesh has held that the criminal proceeding can<\/p>\n
 not be quashed on the ground that complainant failed to<\/p>\n
 specifically allege in complaint that there was intention to<\/p>\n
 cheat on part of accused even at time of entering into<\/p>\n
 contract.\n<\/p>\n
                        iii) AIR 1999 SC 1216 in which the Hon’<\/p>\n
 ble Apex Court of this country has held that the complainant<\/p>\n
 not required to re-produce verbatim all ingredients of offence<\/p>\n
 alleged in body of complaint and to constitute of an offence<\/p>\n
 of cheat and the crux is intention of accused persons.<\/p>\n
                   iv) 2007(3) PLJR 384 in which this Court<\/p>\n
 has held that the allegations of selling land fully knowing that<\/p>\n
 the said land earlier sold to somebody else whether the<\/p>\n
 petitioners had knowledge or had intention to cheat required<\/p>\n
 deeper investigation which could be done by holding a full-<\/p>\n
 fledged trial.\n<\/p>\n
                   16. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions,<\/p>\n
 learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 prayed for
\n                         12<\/span><\/p>\n
dismissing both the above stated criminal misc. cases.<\/p>\n
                  17. Having heard rival contentions of both<\/p>\n
the parties I have gone through the record and the decisions<\/p>\n
cited on behalf of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
                  18. Certain facts are admitted between the<\/p>\n
parties. It is an admitted position that the land of plot no.2 of<\/p>\n
khata no. 19 belonged to one Sihasan          Tiwary who had<\/p>\n
solemnized his second marriage with Mostt. Kaushaliya Devi<\/p>\n
and the aforesaid Kaushaliya Devi had transferred 81<\/p>\n
decimals land of plot no.2 khata no.19 to one Ganesh Tiwary<\/p>\n
on 15.1.2001 by registered sale deed and the aforesaid<\/p>\n
Ganesh Tiwary later on, transferred the aforesaid 81 decimals<\/p>\n
land in favour of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009<\/p>\n
by executing registered sale deed dated 26.2.2003 for valid<\/p>\n
consideration. It is also an admitted position that the wife of<\/p>\n
opposite party no.2 purchased the aforesaid 81 decimals land<\/p>\n
from Gopal Tiwary son of Singhasan Tiwary on 27.1.2001<\/p>\n
i.e. after purchase of Late Ganesh Tiwary from the mother of<\/p>\n
aforesaid Gopal Tiwary. It is also an admitted position that<\/p>\n
the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009 purchased 23<\/p>\n
decimal lands of plot no.2 of khata no.19 on 26.2.2003 from<\/p>\n
Gopal Tiwary who had already sold the above stated lands to<\/p>\n
wife of opposite party no.2 and after that above stated Gopal<\/p>\n
Tiwary executed another sale deed on 10.6.2009 in respect of<\/p>\n
plot no. 1260 of khata no. 54 in favour of the petitioner in Cr.
\n                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
Misc. No. 25664\/2009 in place of above stated 23 decimal<\/p>\n
lands of plot no.2 khata no.19 and also executed an agreement<\/p>\n
to the above stated effect on 19.7.2009 and, therefore, it is<\/p>\n
clear that the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009 is not<\/p>\n
laying any claim on 23 decimal lands of plot no.2 khata no.19<\/p>\n
which had earlier been transferred in his favour by the above<\/p>\n
stated Gopal Tiwary vide registered sale deed dated<\/p>\n
26.2.2003 and only 81 decimal lands of plot no.2 khata no.19<\/p>\n
remained left in dispute between the parties. Admittedly, 81<\/p>\n
decimal lands has been transferred by one Ganesh Tiwary in<\/p>\n
favour of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009 and the<\/p>\n
aforesaid Ganesh Tiwary had purchased the aforesaid land<\/p>\n
from Kaushaliya Devil the step-mother of Gopal Tiwary, and<\/p>\n
subsequently, the aforesaid Gopal Tiwary           transferred the<\/p>\n
aforesaid land in favour of wife of opposite party no.2. So,<\/p>\n
even if, it is assumed that the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.<\/p>\n
25664\/2009 was aware about sale deed of wife of opposite<\/p>\n
party no.2 at the time of purchasing of 81 decimal lands of<\/p>\n
plot no.2 khata no.19 from Ganesh Tiwary, then also, it can<\/p>\n
not be said that he had purchased the aforesaid lands to cheat<\/p>\n
the complainant’s wife because he had not purchased the said<\/p>\n
lands from the vendor of wife of opposite party no.2 and, at<\/p>\n
best, it can be   said that the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.<\/p>\n
25664\/2009 had purchased the aforesaid land from a person<\/p>\n
who had no right to transfer the aforesaid land.
\n                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
                    19. Complaint case no. 379C\/2008 is an<\/p>\n
 offshoot of the aforesaid litigation because the complaint has<\/p>\n
 alleged in the aforesaid complaint petition that he had sown<\/p>\n
 wheat crops in the disputed land but     the petitioners in Cr.<\/p>\n
 Misc. No. 37026\/2009 had forcibly cut the aforesaid wheat<\/p>\n
 crops. Admittedly, both the parties are claiming their title and<\/p>\n
 possession over the above stated disputed land which can be<\/p>\n
 decided in a civil suit.\n<\/p>\n
                    20. In 2011(1)PLJR Supreme Court page<\/p>\n
 20, the Apex Court of this country has held that allegation of<\/p>\n
 selling land, notwithstanding, having knowledge that the said<\/p>\n
 land had already been transferred to someone else and no link<\/p>\n
 to give rise to suspicion of conspiracy between the present<\/p>\n
 vendor, first vendor and his brother to cheat complainant, the<\/p>\n
 complainant, at best, question such transfer and claim damage<\/p>\n
 from vendor of the present vendor and no action would lie<\/p>\n
 before a criminal court.\n<\/p>\n
                    21. In the present case, the complainant<\/p>\n
alleged the factum of conspiracy on the basis that all the<\/p>\n
witnesses and identifiers on the sale deeds of the petitioner in<\/p>\n
Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009 are co-villagers of complainant and<\/p>\n
they were fully aware about prior execution of sale deed of his<\/p>\n
wife but there is nothing in the entire complaint petition to<\/p>\n
show this fact that the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009<\/p>\n
was also aware about the existence of sale deeds of
\n                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
complainant’s wife prior to purchase of lands in question.<\/p>\n
Moreover, as I have already stated that the petitioner in Cr.<\/p>\n
Misc. No. 25664\/2009 has already relinquished his claim in<\/p>\n
respect of 23 decimal lands of plot no. 2 khata no. 19 and he<\/p>\n
has purchased 81 decimal lands of plot no.2 khata no. 19 from<\/p>\n
one Ganesh Tiwary who is not the vendor of the complainant’s<\/p>\n
wife and, therefore, in my view, there is no link to give rise to<\/p>\n
suspicion of conspiracy between the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.<\/p>\n
25664\/2009 and other accused of Complaint case no.<\/p>\n
378C\/2008 as well as Late Ganesh Tiwary, the vendor of the<\/p>\n
petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009 and, at best, it can be<\/p>\n
said that there is link to give rise to suspicion of conspiracy<\/p>\n
between Late Ganesh Tiwary and other accused of Complaint<\/p>\n
case no. 378C\/2008 to cheat not only the complainant’s wife<\/p>\n
but also the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 25664\/2009. Therefore,<\/p>\n
the continuance of Complaint case no. 378C\/2008 as well as<\/p>\n
Complaint case no. 379C\/2008 is nothing but only an abuse of<\/p>\n
process of the law.\n<\/p>\n
                      22. It is also an admitted position that Title<\/p>\n
 Suit no. 108\/2007 in respect of disputed lands is pending<\/p>\n
 between the parties and the dispute of the parties appears to<\/p>\n
 be a bona fide land dispute and, therefore, on this score also<\/p>\n
 continuance of the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint<\/p>\n
 cases is nothing but only an abuse of process of the law.<\/p>\n
                      23.   On   the   basis   of   the   aforesaid
\n                                 16<\/span><\/p>\n
         discussions, I feel no hesitation to allow both the criminal<\/p>\n
         misc. cases and quash the impugned orders dated 13.8.2008<\/p>\n
         and 16.10.2008 passed in Complaint case no. 378C\/2008 as<\/p>\n
         well as Complaint case no. 379C\/2008 respectively and<\/p>\n
         accordingly, both the above stated impugned orders dated<\/p>\n
         13.8.2008 and 16.10.2008 passed in the above stated<\/p>\n
         complaint cases respectively are, hereby, quashed in respect<\/p>\n
         of petitioners only.\n<\/p>\n
                   24. In the aforesaid manner, both the above stated<\/p>\n
         criminal misc. cases and I.A no. 1811\/2009 stand disposed off.<\/p>\n
Shahid                                 ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders Kapil Ram vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 November, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25664 of 2009 Kapil Ram Versus State Of Bihar & Anr with Criminal Miscellaneous No.37026 of 2009 Kapil Ram & Ors Versus State Of Bihar & Anr ——– […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-193248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nKapil Ram vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kapil Ram vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-28T22:25:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kapil Ram vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-28T22:25:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3443,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Kapil Ram vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-28T22:25:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kapil Ram vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kapil Ram vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kapil Ram vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-28T22:25:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kapil Ram vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-28T22:25:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011"},"wordCount":3443,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011","name":"Kapil Ram vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-28T22:25:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapil-ram-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-3-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kapil Ram vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 November, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=193248"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193248\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}