Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. Cognizance taken against the petitioners by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in T. R. No. 1543 of 1993 arising out of complaint petition case No. 317 of 1992, by order, dated 11-1-1993 has been assailed for the purpose of quashing, 2. The facts of the case travel in a very narrow compass. The complaint petition, dated 3-12-1992 was filed by the opposite party No. 2 alleging that on 2-11-1992, the petitioners alongwith others had cut away and reaped the paddy grown by the complainant in a plot of land situated in the district of Hazaribagh under Mauza Masmaohna of Khata No. 131 under plot No. 451 measuring 0.73 decimal. which belonged to him by way of purchase. It had further been alleged that when he raised objection, the petitioners tried to assault him. The complaint was filed under Sections 147/148/579/411 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. There seems to be no plausible explanation as to the delay in filing of the complaint. It further appears from the record that in respect of same incident, a proceeding under Section 144, Cr. P. C. was initiated by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Case No. 246 of 1992, on the basis of an information given by the Mukhiya of the village, but that matter has been suppressed in the complaint petition. After receipt of the complaint and after taking preliminary statement of the petitioner, a report was called for from the Gram Panchayat Pradhan, who submitted a report copy of which has been filed alongwith quashing petition. That report reveals that except the six persons i.e. the petitioners, there were none other at the spot at the alleged time of occurrence which shows that complainant has unnecessrily made 20 persons include in his complaint petition. It was further stated in that report that the first party i.e. the complainant was ready for creating trouble resulting in apprehension of breach of peace and that on enquiry made by the Mukhiya, it was found that the plantation of padd y was raised by the accused petitioners. Even after the receipt of that report, the learned court below took cognizance against the petitioners and such this quashing application has been filed. 4. Even after the receipt of that report, the learned court below took cognizance against the petitioners and such this quashing application has been filed. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that learned counsel below erred in law ignoring the provisions of Section 62 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, when the whole matter could be decided under that provisions of law in the Gram Panchayat court. Their further contention is that when on the same incident, there is a proceeding under Section 144, Cr. P. C. regarding apprehension of breach of peace then this proceeding for an offence under Section 379, I. P. C. is not maintainable. 5. Further more, with reference to the fact as disclosed by the Mukhiya about the title over the land, the petitioners had the lands purchased long ago in the year 1943, copy of the sale-deed has been filed in this case. 6. Thus, when the complainant had alleged of getting title over the land, by a recent purchase, the learned court below ought not to have taken cognizance without insisting on the complainant to prima facie prove his title and possession over the land, in view of the report submitted by the Mukhiya which was before him while taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. 7. In this case, notices were issued even at the admission stage to the opposite party No. 2, but he did not appear and then the case was admitted and again notices were issued on him which was also duly served, but still he remained absent inferring thereby that the complainant has lost all his interest regarding the original case in question. 8. On perusal of the materials submitted on behalf of the petitioners, it transpired that the dispute may be at best a civil dispute and not a criminal one, because the petitioners claim title over the land by virtue of purchase deed of 1943 while the complainant stakes his title by a recent purchase, although nothing particulars have been stated or filed. Cognizance taking by the learned court below is bad in the eye of law in vi.ew of Section 62 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Moreover, when the report of. the Mukhiya was there before the learned court below he ought not to have taken cognizance on the face of the same. Cognizance taking by the learned court below is bad in the eye of law in vi.ew of Section 62 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Moreover, when the report of. the Mukhiya was there before the learned court below he ought not to have taken cognizance on the face of the same. On the same incident, there are two proceedings and it is against the provisions of law that the persons cannot be vexed twice for the same and similar incident or allegation or offence whatever might be. 9. Considering all these above, although, keeping in mind that the scope of quashing is very limited it is found that it is a fit case where this Court exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C. No new facts have been urged in this petition rather all those facts and materials were there before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate and as such it can be safely stated that if the learned court below could have applied his judicial mind then there would not have been cognizance of the offence alleged and hence the order, dated 11-1-1993 passed in T. R. No. 1543 of 1993 by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma is not only bad and irregular but illegal on the face of it. Hence, this petition is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance and the whole proceeding of complaint petition case No. 317 of 1992 (T. R. No. 1543/93) are hereby quashed.