Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 144 (JHR)

Vrigue Nandan Rai v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-01-30

LAKSHMAN URAON

body2003
ORDER Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. Petitioner Vrigue Nan-dan Jha has challenged the order dated 7th August, 2002, passed by Sri B. Pratap, learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, in PCR Case No. 209 of 2002/Tr. No. 930 of 2002, whereby, he has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 144, 447 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and eleven others. 2. Opposite Party No. 2 Bachu Prasad Singh has alleged that this petitioner along with eleven others, named in the First Information Report, harvested the paddy crops, standing over Jamabandi No. 36 and took away the same. 3. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted final form, stating therein, that no offence is made out against the accused persons. On 4th December 2001 a protest petition was filed by the said Bachu Prasad Singh (Opposite Party No. 2) whereupon the learned Court below heard the informant/complainant as also considered the witnesses, produced in course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and by the impugned order dated 7th August, 2002, which is under challenge, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 144, 447 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an appeal in between the parties being Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 2001-2002, pending in the Court of learned Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka, and, as such, the matter is still subjudice before him. 5. The impugned order dated 7th August, 2002, taking cognizance of the offences by the learned Magistrate shows that all the accused persons, who are agnates, are claiming the lands in question, pertaining to Plot No. 278; measuring 52 Decimals, Plot No. 578, measuring 47 Decimals and Plot No. 310, measuring 75 Decimals, all of Jamabandl No. 36, Mauza Raikund. Thana No. 4451 within the district of Deoghar, resulting institution of the said case. To finalise the dispute, the matter is still pending in the Court of learned Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka. 6. In view of the facts, stated above, it appears that it is a case regarding claiming of land and as such, it is purely of a civil nature, which can be redressed by the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division Dumka where it is still under subjudice. 7. 6. In view of the facts, stated above, it appears that it is a case regarding claiming of land and as such, it is purely of a civil nature, which can be redressed by the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division Dumka where it is still under subjudice. 7. On the other hand, when there is a civil suit, pending in between the parties, regarding adjudication of the right, title and possession before a competent Court i.e. Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka, this proceeding in a criminal Court will not serve the purpose of any of the parties. The present matter is regarding claiming of land, resulting harvesting of standing crops, which is purely of a civil nature, and, as such, the proceeding in a criminal Court is unwarranted. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 7th August, 2002, passed by the learned Magistrate, Deoghar, in PCR No. 209 of 2002/Tr. No. 930 of 2002 is hereby quashed.