Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 634 (PAT)

Bhup Narain Jha v. State Of Bihar

2006-07-26

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 24.5.2004, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, in Saharsa PS. Case No. 345 of 2001 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, Bhup Narain Jha as well as other accused persons under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner is the purchaser of the land on the basis of registered sale deed measuring 10 katha and 4 dhur appertaining to khata no. 816, khesra no. 1713. This sale deed was executed on 22.9.1992. The complainant/informant claimed that the land in question was purchased by his father on 20.10.1925 from one Sheikh Sohrab and since then his father and thereafter the complainant came in possession of the land. The accused persons, on the basis of forged sale deed, for which no consideration has been paid, are claiming the possession of the land and harassing the complainant. On such allegations complaint petition was filed and first information report was registered under Sec. 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. After investigation final form was submitted by the investigating officer stating that the allegation made in the first information report is civil in nature and do not make out prima facie case for offences alleged. The Chief Judicial Magistrate disagreeing with the charge-sheet has taken cognizance. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Title Suit No. 2 of 1993 is pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Saharsa, with regard to the same land. It has also been submitted that the allegations which has been made in the first information report do not make out prima facie case under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, so far this petitioner is concerned as he is the purchaser. Nowhere it has been stated that this petitioner had knowledge about the previous purchase of land by complainants father and title and possession of the complainant. This is not the allegation that the petitioner entered into a conspiracy with his vendor and purchased property. Simple allegation is that without payment of consideration amount forged sale deed has been executed and this matter is pending for consideration before the Civil Court in the title suit. 5. Counsel appearing for opposite party no. This is not the allegation that the petitioner entered into a conspiracy with his vendor and purchased property. Simple allegation is that without payment of consideration amount forged sale deed has been executed and this matter is pending for consideration before the Civil Court in the title suit. 5. Counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 has stated that the same facts can be a subject matter of civil dispute as well as of a criminal proceeding, if facts alleged indicates criminal intention and conspiracy of accused person. If facts of the case makes out a prima facie case for the offences alleged, criminal proceeding can not be quashed simply because a civil dispute is pending, relating to same facts. 6. It has rightly been submitted by the counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 that same matter can be considered both by the civil and criminal Courts, in case the allegation made in the first information report specifically shows that there was criminal intention on the part of the accused and having ill-intention they entered into a conspiracy. In the present case, so far this petitioner is concerned, there is no such allegation. If there would have been such allegation against the petitioner then there was nothing for interference of this Court, but considering the fact that petitioner is not the vendor, he is a purchaser and there is no allegation, showing such intention or conspiracy on the part of the petitioner. I am of the view that the order taking cognizance, dated 24.5.2004, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, in Saharsa RS. Case No. 345 of 2001, so far this petitioner is concerned, is not sustainable and it must be quashed. 7. Accordingly, this application is allowed.