Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 20 (PAT)

Ramanand Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2000-01-10

CHOUDHARY, S.N.MISHRA

body2000
Judgment Chy.S.N.Mishra, J. 1. In this criminal Misc. Application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 28.11.91 of an offence punishable under Sec. 504 of the Indian Penal Code including the order dated 28.11.92 whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to drop the proceedings. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Bishwanath Singh lodged First Information Report to the effect that when he was getting the clay unloaded from a truck in front of the house of his master, the petitioners along with 3-4 others came there and objected from unloading the said clay and further told that the meeting which is to be held shall not be allowed by the petitioners at any cost and surrounded the ifnromant and assaulted him with fists, kudal stick, iron rod and some persons took out pistol and touched his chest on which the informant requested them for apology and went away. It is also alleged that the petitioners took away a sum of Rs. 50.00 from the pocket of the informant. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, Buddha Colony P.S. Case No. 343/90 was instituted. After usual investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet only under Sec. 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate accordingly took cognizance of the alleged offence punishable under Sec. 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners filed a petition before the trial Court for dropping the proceedings on the ground that the civil suit with respect to the same properties pending before the Subordinate Judge wherein status quo order was passed. Further 107 proceeding with respect to the same cause of action was initiated which was subsequently dropped. Admittedly, partition suit is pending wherein one of the reliefs has been made in terms of Section-4 of the Partition Act. with respect of portion of the joint family dwelling house purchased by stranger Smt. Sumitra Yadav from one of the co-sharers which is still pending before Sub-Judge IV, Patna. It further appears that the learned Sub-Judge by his order dated 16.12.83 directed the purchaser Smt. Sumitra Yadav not to act against the interest of the petitioners and to maintain status quo with respect to the property purchased by her. Further this Court by its order dated 15.1.85 passed in C.R. No. 31/85 directed to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property. Further this Court by its order dated 15.1.85 passed in C.R. No. 31/85 directed to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property. The said civil revision however, was subsequently converted into a Misc. Appeal No. 8/88 which was allowed infavour of the petitioner by the judgment and order dated 3.7.92. It is submitted that entire holding in question which is subject-matter of the partition suit still stand in the name of the father of the petitioners, and accordingly. The police officials who were present, directed the complainant to maintain status quo hut even then the person hired by the alleged purchaser Smt. Sumitra Yadav forcibly tried to take possession of the land and broke open the gate. It is, therefore, submitted that having regard to the background of the litigation with respect to the property, in question, and having further regard to the fact that the civil suit is pending wherein prayer in terms of Sec. 4 of the Partition Act has also been made and inspite of the order directing to maintain status quo both the trial Court as well as appellate Court, the informant tried to disturb the possession of the petitioners with the anti-social elements. In this case, as stated above, the police has filed a charge-sheet only under Sec. 504, I.P.C. So far other allegation mentioned in the FIR was found to be false. The case was initiated in the year 1990. While admitting this application on 4.3.93 further proceedings in the Court below was stayed. 3. In view of the fact stated above and further having regard to the triffle nature of the offence, it will not he in the interest of justice to allow the criminal proceeding to continue against the petitioners particularly in view of the fact that civil suit, is pending before a competent Court. Accordingly, order taking cognizance of an alleged offence dated 28.11.91 including the order dated 28.11.92 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate refusing to drop the proceeding are hereby quashed. Consequently, this application is allowed.