Radha Mohan Paul @ Radha Mohan Paul and Others vs State of Bihar and Another

Hemant Kr. Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and also heard learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. In my view, this petition can be disposed off at the admission stage itself. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 22.11.2008 passed by Sri R.K. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar in Complaint Case No. C-1015/2008 corresponding to trial no. 399/2009 by which and whereunder he, having found prima facie case under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 465 of the IPC, ordered to issue summons against the petitioners.

The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that opposite party no. 2-Jawahar Lal Gareri filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. C-1015/2008 against the petitioners and two others alleging therein, inter alia, that khata no. 28, plot no. 168 situated at Village-Triveniganj stood in the names of Jhagaru Gareri and Bhuwali Gareri and in Case No. 115/2007 the aforesaid land was partitioned by Permanent Lok Adalat and parties came in possession of their respective shares but it is alleged that petitioners no. 1 to 3 got executed forged sale deed in respect of the disputed land and got mutated their names in revenue record. The aforesaid complaint was enquired u/s 202 of the Cr.P.C. and having found prima facie case, learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 22.11.2008.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the complaint petition assumed to be true, then also, no offence is made out. It is further contended by him that petitioners were not party to the suit which had been decided by Permanent Lok Adalat. It is further contended by him that moreover, disputed land fell into the share of the petitioners and memorandum of partition was prepared between the parties which is Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit.

On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 frankly admitted this fact that petitioners sold the land beyond their allotted share.

Having heard the contentions of the parties, I went through the record. Even if it is assumed that petitioners sold excess lands, then also, I am of the opinion that it is a case of civil dispute and criminal court has got no jurisdiction to decide the share of the parties. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, this quashing petition is allowed on admission stage itself and accordingly, impugned order dated 22.11.2008 passed by Sri R.K. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar in Complaint Case No. C-1015/2008 corresponding to trial no. 399/2009 is, hereby, quashed.