Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

and thereafter the complainant was appointed on compassionate ground as Parcel Clerk and posted at Rajendra Nagar Terminal. The entire paper of land is in the possession of Damodar Pandey who with a view to capture her land area 4 ½ katha started hatching criminal conspiracy and locked her gate. The accused persons have illegally installed mobile tower of M/s.

Airtel Pvt. Ltd in her land as Damodar Pandey and his wife Asha Pandey are taking rent and they also captured her house constructed by her husband on the alleged plot. The complainant is living in Patna with her two daughters and taking advantage of the said accused no(s). 1 & 2 have committed cheating and forgery. The Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24763 of 2016 dt.15-04-2024 complainant sent a legal notice to the accused persons and also gave detailed application to the S.P. Bhojpur on 19.08.2012 which was not fruitful. On 17.01.2013 at 10:00 clock the complainant alongwith the witnesses went at the house of Damodar Pandey and requested him not to harras her.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that present criminal case was lodged out of civil disputes and on this score alone, it is a fit case to be quashed. It is submitted that partition is not disputed rather allegation is of not distributing the rent properly as received from M/s. Airtel Pvt. Ltd. for installing the mobile tower in the land share of O.P. No. 2. It is further submitted that as per sale deed petitioner and O.P. No. 2 each are title holder and co-sharer of 4 ½ katha of land out of total land of 9 katha. It is further submitted that M/s. Airtel Pvt. Ltd. was also made party through present complaint petition but after going through the materials available on record learned trial Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24763 of 2016 dt.15-04-2024 court did not took cognizance against the company, prima facie, making allegation false on its face regarding collection of rent out of mobile tower. It is further submitted that nothing overt act appears in the complaint petition, which may, prima facie, suggest that petitioner was intended to cheat O.P. No. 2, from very inception, where present criminal case was only lodged for the reason that she is one of the co-sharer of the said land.