Badri Narayan Jha vs The State of Bihar and Others

Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.—The accused Petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 19.03.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Pupri at Sitamarhi in Trial No. 417/02 by which the accused have been acquitted.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that at the relevant time the Petitioner was working at Barauni where he was residing with his family members who lodged his Fardbeyan stating therein that the accused persons have cut away paddy crops standing on his land bearing Khata No. 2123, Plot No. 4957, Area 78 decimals situated at village-Mahisoutha Tole Sawar, P.S.-Nanpur, District- Sitmarhi. On the basis of aforesaid Fardbeyan, Nanpur P.S. Case No. 1/94 has instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 144, 443, 379 and 504 of the I.P.C. Charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that the Title Suit No. 56/92 pending between both the parties in the court of learned Sub-Judge II, Sitamarhi has been compromised between both the parties and the case has been withdrawn vide order dated 25.03.2009. It is made clear that this is only information given by the learned Counsel for opposite party; it is not a ground for the disposal of this revision application.

After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment by which the learned court below has acquitted the accused from the charges under Sections 144, 447, 379 and 504 of the I.P.C. by giving them the benefit of doubt. It is admitted fact that the dispute between the parties for which Title Suit No. 66/92 is pending in the court of learned Sub-Judge.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. This revision application is dismissed.