Patna High Court
Krishna Murari Choudhary @ Jhakhsu ... vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 25 August, 2017
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.36178 of 2014
Arising Out of P.S.Case No. -274 Year- 2013 Thana -KHAGARIA COMPALINT CASE District-
KHAGARIA
===========================================================
1. Krishna Murari Choudhary @ Jhakhsu Choudhary son of Shiv Nandan
Choudhary
2. Shiv Nandan Choudhary son of late Jageshwar Choudhary, Both
resident of village Pipra , P.O. Keshav Nagar , P.S, Chautham ,
district - Khagaria,.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Bihar &
2. Bhajjan Mahto, son of Late Saryug Mahto of village-Adawari P.O. Keshav
Nagar, P.S. Chautham, District-Khagaria
.... .... Opposite Parties
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Narayan Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Advocate.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 25-08-2017
This application has been filed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 13.02.2014 passed by Judicial
Magistrate, Ist Class, Khagaria in Complaint Case No.274C of 2013
whereunder the court below took cognizance against the petitioners
for the offence under Sections 466, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the IPC
and summoned the petitioners.
2. Heard and perused the record.
3. The facts in brief is that the father of Opposite Party No.2
had purchased land from petitioner nos.1 and 2 in the year 1991. The
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36178 of 2014 dt.25-08-2017
2/3
name of purchaser, i.e., father of Opposite Party No.2 was mutated
and he was coming in possession over the said land. The complainant
has alleged that these petitioners in collusion with deed writer and
witnesses did not mention the description of land correctly. They
mentioned wrong plot number and khata number and thereby cheated
the father of the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these
petitioners had executed sale deed in the year 1991 in favour of the
father of complainant who is now no more. The complainant has filed
this case after 26 years of the execution of sale deed in question. The
allegation of cheating is not specific. The complainant was neither
present at the time of execution of sale deed nor he had any concern
with the execution of sale deed. The grievance of the Opposite Party
No.2 is that the description was not correctly mentioned in the sale
deed. The allegation appears vague. Petitioners however admit that
the complainant is coming in peaceful possession of the said land
since 1991. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature and so
the cognizance order is fit to be quashed.
5. Learned App opposed the submissions.
6. On perusal of impugned order, it appears that there is no
ingredient of cheating or committing breach of trust against the
petitioners as the father of Opposite Party No.2 was put in possession
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36178 of 2014 dt.25-08-2017
3/3
over the land on the basis of registered sale deed executed to the name
of father of Opposite Party No.2. The criminal prosecution of these
petitioners under such circumstance appears to be abuse of the process
of the Court.
7. In view of the discussions made above, the order dated
13.02.2014taking cognizance against the petitioners is hereby quashed and this criminal application is allowed.
(Sanjay Kumar, J) B.Kr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE
Uploading Date 30.08.2017 Transmission 30.08.2017 Date