Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1301 (PAT)

Hari Das Ghosh v. State Of Bihar

2007-08-08

J.N.SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of valid service of notice, no body appears for opposite party no. 2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 3.4.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj in Complaint Case No. 867C of 2001, whereby cognizance has been taken against petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. From perusal of the complaint it appears that the complainant had negotiated with the accused persons for purchase of 60 bighas of land for a consideration of rupees three lacs. After negotiations, an advance of Rs. 11,000/- was paid to petitioner no. 1 in token of which petitioner no. 1 gave receipt to the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that as per agreement complainant offered petitioner no. 1 to receive rest of the amount of consideration and execute registered sale deed. However, petitioner no. 1 did not do so and kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant therefore got a pleaders notice served on petitioner no. 1 for accepting the rest of the amount and executing the sale deed. Thereafter, a vague allegation was made in the complaint that when the complainant insisted for executing the sale deed, petitioner no. 1 abused him and manhandled him and threatened him with life. Hence, the complainant alleged that petitioner no. 1 had kept the advance money given by the complainant with an intention of cheating the complainant and misappropriating the money. 4. Case of the petitioners is that the legal notice was replied on behalf of the petitioners, where they have said that the complainant was not ready to pay the rest of the amount and therefore sale deed was not being executed. Reply on behalf of the petitioners to the legal notice is contained in Annexure-3 to this application. It is said that thereafter the complainant filed title suit claiming the property. The title suit was thereafter compromised. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now the complainant has paid the entire consideration amount to the petitioners and the petitioners have registered the land in favour of the complainant. A compromise petition has been filed in the complaint case dated 25.1.2007 wherein both the parties have submitted that they have compromised the matter and they do not want to proceed with the case. A compromise petition has been filed in the complaint case dated 25.1.2007 wherein both the parties have submitted that they have compromised the matter and they do not want to proceed with the case. Certified copy of the said compromise petition has been produced by learned counsel for the petitioners for perusal by Court. 5. From the averments made in the complaint it is apparent that this is out and out a civil dispute and the dispute arose only with regard to negotiation and sale of land by the petitioners. Subsequently, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, land has been registered in the name of the complainant on payment of entire consideration money and this complaint case has also been compromised and compromise petition has been filed by both the parties in the court below. In that view of the matter, in my view, continuance of this proceeding against petitioners will be an abuse of the process of the court as no party is willing to proceed with the matter as apparent from the compromise petition. Further, it is apparent that the case is out and out a civil dispute and therefore, cognizance taken under various sections of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners is bad in law. 6. Thus, in the interest of justice, exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., I hereby quash the order dated 3.4.2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj in Complaint Case No. 867C of 2001 as well as entire proceeding connected therewith. 7. In the result, this application is allowed.