Geeta Devi & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no. 1 and 5 namely, Geeta Devi and Sandip Kumar died during pendency of the present application and, therefore, effectively this petition survives only with regard to petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4 namely, Smt. Poonam Devi @ Puniya, Pooja Devi and Boubi.

The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.04.2016 in connection with G.R. No. 2880/2009 (Kotwali Tilkamanjhi P.S. Case No. 650 of 2009), as passed by learned A.C.J.M.-X, Bhagalpur, whereby and whereunder learned Magistrate rejected the petition dated 22.04.2014 registered for the offences under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and refused to discharge the petitioners without considering the merit of the case.

The prosecution case, as alleged in the written report, is that on 17.10.2009, the informant was present at her house along with her mother, brother and cousin when the petitioners, along with some other persons, allegedly entered the house and assaulted them. It is alleged that the son-in-law of petitioner no. 1 fired at the informant’s mother with a country-made pistol at the instigation of petitioner no. 1. The informant further alleged that the accused persons assaulted her and her family members with lathi, danda and khanti, snatched her golden chain and took away Rs. 8,600/-from the bag of her parents. It was also alleged that one of the accused attempted to commit rape upon her. On the basis of the written report, Tilkamanjhi P.S. Case No. 650 of 2009 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that lodging of the present criminal case was completely unoccasioned and unwarranted and arises on the background of ongoing land dispute, for which one Title Suit bearing No. 100/2010 is pending before the learned Sub-Judge-X, Bhagalpur, initiated on behalf of petitioner no. 1.

It is also made clear by learned counsel that in the ongoing land dispute, petitioner no.1 namely, Gita Devi (since died) has filed Civil Writ being C.W.J.C. No. 13366 of 2007 ( Smt. Geeta Devi and Ors Vs. The Union of India & Anr.) with respect to the aforesaid land before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, in which Sadanand Singh, was one of the respondent in the said Civil Writ, where vide order dated 08.09.2008, the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to direct the parties concerned to maintain the status quo over the disputed piece of land.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anukul Singh v. State of U.P. and Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2060.

Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the informant has opposed the prayer made in the present application and submitted that merely because a civil proceeding is pending between the parties, the criminal proceeding cannot ipso facto be quashed. It is submitted that there is no legal bar against the criminal and civil proceedings proceeding simultaneously, provided the alleged ingredients of the alleged offences are made out.

In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon the judgement of Rikhab Birani & Another v State of UP & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 823.

Upon consideration of the materials on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it appears that the genesis of the present criminal case lies in an existing land dispute between petitioner no. 1 and the informant’s father, Sadanand Singh. The petitioners have brought on record the details of the land in question, which was purchased by petitioner no. 1 through registered sale deeds dated 21.05.1997, 23.05.1997 and 12.06.1997. It further appears that disputes relating to the said land were already pending between the parties, and petitioner no. 1 had also approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 13366 of 2007, wherein an order directing the parties to maintain status quo was passed on 08.09.2008.

It further appears from the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation that there was an admitted land dispute between the husband of petitioner no. 1 and the informant’s father. The independent witnesses have also stated that no articles were snatched by the accused persons during the alleged occurrence. Thus, the allegations of theft do not find support from the statements of the independent witnesses examined during investigation.

It is also relevant to notice that although the written report contains serious allegations, including an allegation of firing and an attempt to commit rape, the police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet only under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The materials collected during investigation, particularly the statements of the independent witnesses, have to be considered in the background of the admitted and long-standing land dispute between the parties.

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The dispute appears to have arisen out of a property dispute between the parties, which had already given rise to civil and other legal proceedings. Permitting the criminal proceeding to continue, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would serve no useful purpose.

Accordingly, impugned order dated 25.04.2016 as passed by learned A.C.J.M.-X, Bhagalpur in connection with G.R. No. 2880/2009 arising out of Kotwali Tilkamanjhi P.S. Case No. 650 of 2009 is hereby set-aside/quashed with all its consequential proceeding qua above-named petitioners.

The application stands allowed.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court forthwith.