AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sheema Ali Khan, J.—Despite valid service of notice on Opposite Party No. 2, nobody has appeared on his behalf to pursue this matter.
This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 02.06.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 483 (C) of 2006 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 144, 148, 149, 342, 323 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation in the complaint petition are that the complainant acquired certain lands by way of registered BAIEUL BWAFA. The description of the lands is given in the complaint petition. It is alleged that the Petitioners came to the land and are said to have cut the crops and assaulted the complainant.
The facts of the case are that Title Suit No. 71 of 2003 is pending between the parties with respect to the lands in question. Both the parties are obviously claiming that they are in possession of the lands by virtue of certain registered documents. 144 Code of Criminal Procedure proceedings had also been initiated on 03.03.2006. In the said proceedings, the Sub Divisional Officer ordered the Circle Inspector to cut the crops and to keep them in the safe custody. The complainant had filed a revision against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, which was dismissed.
The Circle Inspector had also filed a case against the complainant alleging therein that he had cut the crops despite there being an order of the Sub Divisional Officer restraining them from cutting the crops. The criminal case instituted by the Circle Inspector is dated 04.04.2006. The present case has been filed for an occurrence which allegedly took place on 24.03.2006.
From the facts aforesaid, it would appear that the complainant is making an allegation that the Petitioners had cut the crops, whereas the Circle Inspector has disputed this fact by filing a case against the complainant for cutting the crops standing over the lands in question.
In fact in the facts described above, it is obvious that the parties are trying to take advantage over each other by somehow establishing their possession over the lands which are already subject matter of a civil suit. The proper procedure in such cases would have been to obtain an order of injunction. Filing of the criminal case could never be a solution. In this case, especially, where there is an order of the Sub Divisional Officer that the crops are to be cut by the Circle Inspector, it appears that there has been violation of the order. In any event, this Court finds that the facts of this case do not reveal offences under Sections 342, 323 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, I quash the order dated 02.06.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 483 (C) of 2006.
In the result, this application is allowed.