Patna High Court - Orders
Amrendra Kumar Jha @ Mithilesh Kumar Jha ... vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 August, 2012
Author: Mandhata Singh
Bench: Mandhata Singh
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27746 of 2009 (07) dt.08-08-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.27746 of 2009
======================================================
1. Amrendra Kumar Jha @ Mithilesh Kumar Jha @ Munna @ Munna Jha
2. Uma Shankar Jha
3. Brajendra Jha
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Anr
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Miscellaneous No.32409 of 2010
======================================================
1. Amrendra Kumar Jha @ Mithilesh Kumar Jha @ Munna Jha @ Munna
2. Uma Shankar Jha
3. Brajendra Jha @ Brajendra Kumar Jha
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Anr
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Cr.Misc. No.27746 of 2009)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha-Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shashtri-A.P.P.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Indeshwari Prasad Mandal-Adv.
(In Cr.Misc. No.32409 of 2010)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha-Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shashtri-A.P.P.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Indeshwari Prasad Mandal-Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
07 08-08-2012This is an application for quashing the order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bhagalpur in Criminal Revision No.230 of 2007 in which revision application filed by the O.P.no.2 has been allowed and the order dated 03.6.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhagalpur in Complaint Case No.750 of 2001 through which learned Magistrate has issued process against petitioners after cognizance.
This complaint case was dismissed by the Magistrate Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27746 of 2009 (07) dt.08-08-2012 against which Cr. Revision No.230 of 2007 filed and decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bhagalpur by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision directing the trial Court to pass proper order which is complied by the learned Magistrate, process is issued finding prima facie case true. In Cr. Misc. No.27746 of 2009 legality of order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court- II, Bhagalpur is challenged while in Cr. Misc. No.32409 of 2010, order of issuance of process is challenged. Basis for challenging both the orders is that no case at all is made out, so are taken together for decision.
Initially, complaint no.493 of 1997 was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in which learned Magistrate ordered for lodging first information report under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., that was complied. Matter was investigated and final form submitted showing no accusation against accused/ petitioners. A protest-cum-complaint petition was filed thereon in which after inquiry dismissal order under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. was passed by the learned Magistrate, which was challenged in Cr. Revision no.230 of 2007. Same allegation was levelled in earlier complaint case based for first information report. Complaint Case, in brief, is that complainant's grand father had purchased the land in question 50-55 years ago, which accused-petitioners purchased from some unauthorized person, got their name mutated, came over the land to dispossess him and towards dispossession, he damaged informant's crop over the land for which a criminal case and another Title Suit No.103 of 1992 was filed. It is further alleged that accused/ petitioners came over the land on 31.5.1997 variously armed with different weapons started to demolish its construction and damaged articles rather taken away those articles, assaulted Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27746 of 2009 (07) dt.08-08-2012 him, his brother, pelted stones, brick bats injuring informant, his brother and further abused.
Submission on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no substance in the allegation. Admittedly, the title suit was filed on behalf of complainant for title and possession over the land in question, which is decided in their (petitioners) favour on 15.4.2010. Further submission on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once possession over the land is not found in the title suit, no offence can constitute concerning possession. It makes no difference whenever suit is decided, it always relates back to the date of filing of the suit, which is earlier to this complaint petition. Photo copy of certified copy of judgment of Title Suit no.103 of 1992 is there on record of Cr. Misc. No.32409 of 2010, which is clear on the point that title and possession by the complainant in that title suit is claimed as occupancy raiyat not on basis of any purchase or sale. Quarrel, if any, was concerning possession over the land which has already been decided against the complainant. So, he (complainant) may not be allowed to stick over his allegation without going through the decision of title suit. Allegation itself is clear that there is claim and counter-claim of the parties over the land and construction, if any, which has not been considered by the trial Court. So, the order of trial Court is not liable to be sustained.
Accordingly, this quashing application is allowed and impugned order passed in Complaint Case No.750 of 2001 along with the whole prosecution against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
(Mandhata Singh, J) Vikash/-