Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1799 (PAT)

Vinod Mandal v. State of Bihar

2007-11-22

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2007
ORDER : Heard Sri Amarendra Nath Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri Anil Chandra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. 2. This application at the instance of one of the accused of Patna Harijan P.S. Case No. 24 of 1999, G.R. No. 1484 of 1999 is for the quashing of the ORDER :dated 3.7.2006 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 352, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 3(1) (iv), (v) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as also for award of an exemplary cost and compensation. 3. It appears that the petitioner had purchased one Katha 17 Dhurs of land appertaining to Khesra No. 1799 in Mauza Dharharwa in the District of Muzaffarpur from O.P. No. 2’s mother and his other family members through several sale deeds executed in between 1970 and 1995 and on getting possession thereof and after constructing a house thereupon started living with his family members. It also appears that one of the vendees was O.P. No. 2 who had executed one of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner on 7.5.1988, a copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the application. It further appears that the said lands was mutated in favour of the petitioner. It further appears that one of the family members and O.P. No. 2, Most. Janki Devi, filed Partition Suit No. 4 of 1996 before the learned Munsif (East), Muzaffarpur staking claim in the family properties and therein she impleaded the two accused of G.R. Case No. 1484 of 1999 including the petitioner as defendant Nos. 5 and 6 and the said Suit was decreed on compromise between the parties and O.P. No. 2 was one of the signatories to the Compromise Petition, the JUDGMENT : and decree and compromise petition have been appended herein as Annexure-3 series. However, notwithstanding the said compromise, in March, 1999 when the petitioner was constructing roof of his house on the aforesaid land purchased from O.P. No. 2's family members, O.P. No. 2, started creating disturbances and started demanding illegal gratification of Rs. However, notwithstanding the said compromise, in March, 1999 when the petitioner was constructing roof of his house on the aforesaid land purchased from O.P. No. 2's family members, O.P. No. 2, started creating disturbances and started demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- and which the petitioner came to know later on was at the instance of one Rajdeo Paswan, himself a purchaser of land from the family of O.P. No. 2, who had incited O.P. No. 2 to disturb the petitioner in ORDER :to get passage of ingress and egress through the petitioner's land. The petitioner appears to have approached the local police on the basis whereof proceedings under Sections 107 and 144 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the O.P. No. 2 and his family members which eventually died a natural death on efflux of the statutory period. 4. Notwithstanding the above developments O.P. No. 2 submitted a written report on 14.6.1999 on the basis whereof Patna Harijan P.S. Case No. 24 of 1999 was registered. It was inter alia alleged that Sitaram Mandal and his son, Binod Mandal, had come from elsewhere and settled on their lands and gradually they had enticed the illiterate and rusty villagers and under intoxication and surreptitiously got executed sale deeds in respect of those lands in their favour. These lands, it was claimed, were the lands of landless Harijans who lived in small hutlets constructed on other lands. Allegation of using force by the petitioner to forcibly occupy these lands with outside help of ruffians was also made. It was also said that in fact no partition of these lands had been done and in view of the lands being of small area the informant's party was living on these lands after constructing small huts. 5. It was sought to be submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his prosecution is bad in law and fact and cannot be relied upon. It was further submitted that when the matter had already been compromised by a court of competent jurisdiction wherein O.P. No. 2 was a signatory, the informant O.P. No. 2 could not have challenged the petitioner's right, title and possession even in a Civil Court. On these premise, it was sought to be submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner was an abuse of the process of court and, therefore, was required to be quashed. 6. On these premise, it was sought to be submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner was an abuse of the process of court and, therefore, was required to be quashed. 6. Admittedly, what the informant wanted to do in this case was to put pressure on the petitioner herein so that the alleged lands which had allegedly been sold to the petitioner by him and his family members could be won back by dubious means and by filing a criminal case. Even if the story propounded by the informant, the petitioner having purchased his lands by dubious means is to be believed then relief could be got only through a civil suit and not by initiating a criminal proceeding. 7. In opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 frankly admitted that he had indeed signed the compromise petition but the petitioner was not fulfilling the terms of the compromise and the money due to him was not being paid. Even if the submission by the learned counsel for C.P. No. 2 is to be believed then the relief could only be available through a civil suit and not by way of a criminal case. 8. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the informant being civil in nature no criminal proceeding was maintainable appears to be well founded. As stated in the foregoing paragraphs both the stories, as propounded by the informant and the story advanced by the learned counsel for the C.P. No. 2 in course of the submissions, can be termed as civil wrong for which no criminal proceeding is maintainable. 9. The Apex Court and this Court have repeatedly been condemning and deprecating the present day tendency of the litigants filing criminal cases to put pressure on the opposite party in a civil case and to force them into compromising the matter. The present case seems to be one such example. Apparently, such criminal proceeding cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 10. Accordingly, the ORDER :of taking cognizance, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed as the same prima facie happens to be a malicious prosecution. The application is allowed.