Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 316 (PAT)

Dhan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2000-02-28

D.N.PRASAD

body2000
Judgment D.N.PRASAD, J. 1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein to quash the entire proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. (C/1) No. 406 of 1997 including the order dated 19.9.1997 taking cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, for the offences under Sections 406/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The short facts giving rise to this application are that the Opposite party No. 2, Smt. Sewati Bai filed a complaint case claiming therein that she has got some lands in Mouza Khan recorded in the name of her father and mother. Both father and mother died leaving behind the complainant/O.P. No. 2 and her sister. It is further claimed that tour accused-persons came at Jamshedpur in the house of the complainant and approached her regarding the land and the complainant was agreed to give the lands to the accused persons of theka of Rs. 8,000/- per year and the accused-persons agreed to pay the same to the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant was invited at her native place where the accused-persons took some signature un some papers on the plea that these papers are made for the payment of Rs. 8,000/- per year and on good faith the complainant put her signature and LTI. It is further alleged that the accused-persons were also paying the amount of Rs. 8,000/- per year to the complainant, but later on they stopped payment. It is further alleged that on 23.8.1997 all the accused-persons came to the house of the complainant and asked the complainant for mutual compromise but the husband of the complainant was not in good health and, therefore the complainant requested them to stay on the night. On the following day, at about 7.30 a.m. when the complainant went to call them for tea, she found that nobody was present in the room and also found articles such as table cloth, transistor, etc. were taken away by the accused-persons. Accordingly, the complainant case was filed. 3. The enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. was made and thereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance by the impugned order. 4. were taken away by the accused-persons. Accordingly, the complainant case was filed. 3. The enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. was made and thereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance by the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the whole prosecution case has been concocted in order to harass the petitioner, as the petitioner had never visited Jamshed-pur and actuality, the lands in question were already sold by the complainant by registered deed as back as in the year 1971. It is further submitted that mutation has also been made in the name of the petitioner as the petitioner had purchased the said lands for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and the petitioner never came to the residence of he complainant as alleged and so the que ion of committing theft does not arise, as well as there was no occasion for the petitioner to request for compromise. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2 submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order to be interferred as the learned Magistrate has rightly took cognizance after finding the case prima facie against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner and others had actually visited the residence of the complainant in respect of the lands in question and they committed theft. 6. The complaint case was filed as Lack as in the year 1997 and there is a specific allegation against all the accused-persons including the petitioner for committing theft of the articles. The learned Magistrate considered the entire allegations made in the complaint petition and gone through the evidence and took cognizance by the impugned order dated 19.9.1997. Hence, this Court in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. should not interfere with the said order. It is also settled that the inherent power for quashing of criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It is true that some documents have been filed from the said of the petitioner which can be considered at length during trial. It is equally settled that while exercising power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in the matter of quashing, this Court is not supposed to meticulously examine the documents produced by the accused-persons in their defence. It is true that some documents have been filed from the said of the petitioner which can be considered at length during trial. It is equally settled that while exercising power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in the matter of quashing, this Court is not supposed to meticulously examine the documents produced by the accused-persons in their defence. Reference may be made to the cases of the apex Court reported in Rupan Deol Bajaj and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, 1995 (2) East Cr C 706 (SC) : 1995 (6) SCC 194 and State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla, 1996 (1) East Cr C 398 (SC) : 1996 (8) SCC 164 . 7. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has rightly took cognizance which does not require to be interferred at this stage. Thus, I do not find any merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner may raise all those points before the Court below at the appropriate stage of trial.