Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1680 (PAT)

Ram Harkh Ram v. State Of Bihar

2010-07-28

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Fourteen petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 20.6.2000 passed in TR Case No. 585 of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bagha (West Champaran). By the said order, the learned Magistrate had rejected the discharge" petition filed by the petitioners. 2. Short fact of the case is that one Dinanath Mishra, who was caretaker of one Shri Indrajeet Vikram Sah, gave his fardbeyan to the police alleging there in that while he was in the field of his landlord, about 100-150 accused persons variously armed visited the field of the landlord of the complainant and forcibly cut the crops and looted the same. It was alleged that in the occurrence, the landlord of the informant had suffered a loss of about Rs. 40,000/-, which was the cost of the crop. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, an FIR vide Bagha PS Case No. 59 of 1994 was registered on 11.11.1994 and FIR was registered for the offence under Sections 144 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet and at the stage of charge, a discharge petition was filed by the petitioners and by the impugned order i.e.,by order dated 20.6.2000, the learned Magistrate rejected the discharge petition. 3. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition and on 20.8.2001, the petition was admitted for hearing and the Court directed for issuance of notice to opposite party No. 2. In the meanwhile, it was directed that further proceeding in Tr. Case No. 585 of 2000 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bagha (West Champaran) as against the petitioners shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. 4. In this case, despite issuance of notice to opposite party No. 2, the opposite party No. 2 has not preferred to appear and as such in absence of opposite party No. 2, the matter was heard. 5. 4. In this case, despite issuance of notice to opposite party No. 2, the opposite party No. 2 has not preferred to appear and as such in absence of opposite party No. 2, the matter was heard. 5. Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel appearing oft behalf of the petitioners, has argued that the case was falsely instituted as per the instance of the landlord of the informant, whose land was already declared as surplus and long back in the year 1987-88, for said land, purchase were issued in favour of about 131 landless persons which include the petitioners or their relatives. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further referred to Annexure-4 to the petition, which is a report, prepared by the police on 29.3.1995, wherein it was reported that the land in question was actually distributed to the landless persons. The said report was prepared in relation to a proceeding initiated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the land, which was alleged as the land of the landlord of the informant, was actually lands, which were distributed to the petitioners and as such it was submitted that it was hardly a case of land dispute for which the petitioners cannot be prosecuted. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the learned Magistrate, without examining materials, which were brought by the petitioners, in a mechanical manner, has passed the impugned order, whereby discharge petition of the petitioners were rejected. Accordingly, it has been prayed that order dated 20.6.2000 is liable to be set aside. 6. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It was submitted that it was an apparent case of loot committed by the petitioners and others and as such the petition may be rejected. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and State, I have also perused the materials available on record. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate, while hearing the discharge petition, was required to ascertain as to whether purchase in relation to the land in question was actually issued to the petitioners or their relatives or not. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate, while hearing the discharge petition, was required to ascertain as to whether purchase in relation to the land in question was actually issued to the petitioners or their relatives or not. The record shows that the claim of the petitioners regarding the issuance of purchase in their favour has got substance and force. Moreover, the report, which has been annexed as Annexure-4, also indicates that the land, which was claimed by the landlord of informant, was a disputed land. 9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as pendency of the case for such a long time, that too, without any progress, this Court is of the opinion that allowing the proceeding to proceed further, will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the Court. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 20.6.2000 passed by Shri K. Dinesh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bagha (West Champaran) in TR No. 585 of 2000 is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed.