Patna High Court - Orders
Nagendra Thakur & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar on 12 September, 2014
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.12206 of 2012
======================================================
1. Nagendra Thakur S/O Late Harischandra Thakur R/O Vill-Khaira Pahari,
P.S. Purnahiya, Distt-Sheohar
2. Puspa Devi W/O Nagendra Thakur R/O Vill-Khaira Pahari, P.S.
Purnahiya, Distt-Sheohar
3. Baiju Pandit S/O Raghunath Pandit R/O Vill-Khaira Pahari, P.S.
Purnahiya, Distt-Sheohar
4. Binod Ram S/O Suraj Ram R/O Vill-Khaira Pahari, P.S. Purnahiya,
Distt-Sheohar
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Prabhakar Thakur, S/o Suresh Thakur of Vill-Khaira Pahari,
P.S.Purnahiya, Distt-Sheohar
.... .... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.1: Mr. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP
For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. T.N. Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 12-09-2014Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Mr. T.N. Jha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 files a counter affidavit in the Court. Let it be kept on record.
The petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar at Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No.C-1/139 of 2011, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 467, 468 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant (opposite party no.2) in the first paragraph of the complaint petition has stated that the accused Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12206 of 2012 (6) dt.12-09-2014 2/3 persons and him come from a common stock of family and are related to each other. It has been alleged that despite having knowledge that the grandfather of the complainant had children, a sale-deed was executed by petitioner no.1 in favour of petitioner no. 5, transferring the land, which was not the land of the petitioners. It has been stated in the complaint petition that because of such transfer of land, the complainant-opposite party no.2 has been put to severe loss and the petitioners also had made themselves liable for being prosecuted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 467, 468 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
The counsel for the petitioners submits that with respect to the dispute over sale of the plot of land, the brother of the complainant had filed a case before the L.R.D.C., Sheohar in Land Dispute Case No.55/2011-12. The learned L.R.D.C., vide his order dated 12.01.2012, dismissed such application on the ground that the dispute was for delineating the shares from a common plot of land and it was beyond the jurisdiction of the L.R.D.C. to cancel the registration.
Taking advantage of such a civil action, having been taken by the brother of the complainant against such a transfer, allegedly made by petitioner no.1, the petitioners submit that it is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12206 of 2012 (6) dt.12-09-2014 3/3 a case of absolute civil liability. If the land of the complainant has been sold off in favour of petitioner no.5 out of confusion about the vendors' respective share of that family property, the petitioners cannot be saddled with any criminal liability.
The order taking cognizance dated 19.11.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar at Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No.C-1/139 of 2011 as against the petitioners, therefore, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is set aside.
The application stands allowed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Pawan/-
U T