Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 42 (PAT)

Badri Sah & Anr. v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-08

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the order dated 4.2.2005 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Criminal Revision No. 266 of 2003 thereby and thereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge has affirmed the order of cognizance dated 11.7.2003 passed by S.D.J.M., Raxaul at Motihari in Complaint Case No. 103 of 2003. 2. On perusal of the complaint petition it appears that the only allegation against the petitioners is that they executed a sale deed dated 1.4.2003 in favour of Baidya Nath Prasad Yadav in respect of the land giving boundary of the complainants land with intention to commit forgery etc. and to grab the land of the complainant. 3. In course of submission learned counsel for the petitioners filed original deed of correction dated 23.7.2005 in order to show that the error committed in earlier sale deed has already been corrected. The deed of correction has been executed between the petitioners and the purchaser, Badri Nath Prasad Yadav. The deed is a registered deed. It is further submitted that the allegations contained in the complaint petition do not disclose any criminal offence. It is out and out a civil dispute. Actually boundary has been given on the entire plot and not of the fraction of any land. 4. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the document filed by the petitioners and also considered the allegations levelled in the complaint petition. On perusal of the complaint petition it is quite clear that it is totally a civil dispute. The allegations do not disclose any criminal offence particularly of Sections 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from it the error has already been corrected through the registered document. 5. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it is quite clear that continuance of this criminal prosecution is out and out an abuse of process of court and is fit to be quashed. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order alongwith entire criminal proceeding is hereby quashed.