Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Patna High Court - Orders

Bangali Singh & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 October, 2012

Author: Rakesh Kumar

Bench: Rakesh Kumar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22339 of 2010
                  ==================================================
                  1. Bangali Singh, son of late Shri Sant Lal Singh
                  2. Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Kumar son of Shri Bangali Singh.
                     Both residents of „Sumitra Sadan‟, Boring Road, P.S.-Shri
                     Krishnapuri, District-Patna.

                                                                     .... ....   Petitioners.
                                                 Versus
                  1. The State of Bihar
                  2. Ravi Kumar son of Shri Rajeshwar Prasad, resident of Mohalla
                     Sheopuri, P.O. & P.S. - Shastri Nagar, District-Patna.

                                                   .... .... Opposite Parties.
                  ==================================================
                  CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
                  ORAL ORDER

                                -------------------------

9.   09-10-2012

Heard Sri Anjani Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Sandip Kumar, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Nityanand, learned counsel for complainant/opposite party no. 2.

Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 28-01-2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "Magistrate") in Complaint Case No. 2834(C) of 2009/Trial No. 78 of 2010. 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22339 of 2010 (9) dt.09-10-2012 2/5 By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 379, 323, 384, 406, 448, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and directed for summoning accused persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the order of cognizance, submits that the complaint petition was filed maliciously and only with a view to get possession of the shop in question. He submits that earlier complainant was tenant of petitioners and he was running a shop in the name of „Kings Biryani‟, situated at Boring Road, opposite Karlo Motors, Patna. He submits that since the shop was not running smoothly and running in loss, the complainant himself had handed over possession of the shop in question to the petitioners, who are landlord of the shop in question and thereafter, to the reason best known to him, he wanted to get again possession of the shop and for the same facts and circumstances, the complainant filed a suit i.e. Title Suit No. 420 of 2009 in the court of Sub Judge-I, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "Sub Judge").

Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22339 of 2010 (9) dt.09-10-2012 3/5 to „Annexure-9‟ to the supplementary affidavit filed on 13-09-2009, which is a copy of the plaint filed by the complainant. He submits that in sum and substance in the said title suit before Sub Judge, the complainant made a prayer for permanent injunction and also for direction to hand over possession of the suit property and all belongings of the complainant/plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn my attention to „Annexure-7‟ to the main petition. He submits that in relation to the allegation, an inquiry was also conducted by local police i.e. Assistant Sub-Inspector, Shri Krishnapuri Police Station. He submits that during inquiry, the Assistant Sub Inspector had examined number of witnesses, who had categorically stated that the shop in question was already given to the petitioners by the complainant prior to filing of the complaint petition. On aforesaid grounds, he has prayed for quashing of order of cognizance.

Sri Sandip Kumar, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Nityanand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that it is true that suit was filed under 4 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22339 of 2010 (9) dt.09-10-2012 4/5 the B.B.C. Act, but fact remains that in the complaint petition that there is specific material to show commission of offences for which, learned Magistrate has passed order of cognizance. Sri Kumar has specifically drawn my attention to paragraph no. 6, 12 and 13 of the complaint petition, in support of his argument that it was a clear-cut case of commission of criminal offences. He submits that though there was dispute in between the landlord and tenant, there are sufficient materials in the complaint petition to suggest that criminal offence was committed by the petitioners and learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, has committed no error.

Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record, particularly complaint petition. On perusal whereof, the Court is satisfied that there was material on record to proceed with the case. I have also perused the impugned order, which suggests that learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, has committed no error. There is no requirement to interfere with the impugned order.

5/5

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay