Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 676 (PAT)

Arvind Kumar Sing v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-07

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The petitioners, five in number, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , have prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.11.1998 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has approved the order dated 7.10.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Siwan. By the order dated 7.10.1996, the learned Magistrate had rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners. 2. The short facts of the case is that the complainant filed Complaint Case No.1107 of 1995 disclosing therein that by a deed, his uncle Jagaranth Singh had gifted 2 bighas 15 kathas and 7dhurs of land to him and the complainant/opp. Party no.2 after execution of the deed was in peaceful possession of the land as well as the house in question. He further asserted in the complaint petition that petitioners were knowing well regarding the said gift. It was further alleged in the complaint petition that accused persons conspiring with each other, petitioner No.2 showing a false deed of gift, only showing imaginary consideration money by committing forgery prepared a deed in the name of petitioner no.1. It was also alleged that petitioner no.5 was the deed writer of the gift deed, which was prepared by Jagarnath Singh in favour of the complainant still petitioner no.5 became deed writer in the subsequent deed. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that petitioner no.2 was wife of Jagarnath Singh, who had earlier gifted the land and house in question in favour of the complainant. On these allegations, the complaint petition was filed. 3. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that there were sufficient material for framing of the charges under Sections 120 B, 465,467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to fix the date on 15.10.1996 for framing of charge. The learned Magistrate in its order dated 7.10.1996 has also recorded that P. W.1 Jagarnath Singh had stated that he had never executed gift deed in favour of his wife. Against the order dated 7.10.1996 a Criminal Revision, vide Cr. Revision No.353 of 1996 was preferred which too stood rejected. After rejection of the revision petition, the petitioners approached this Court and by order dated 6.8.1999 while issuing notice to Opp. Against the order dated 7.10.1996 a Criminal Revision, vide Cr. Revision No.353 of 1996 was preferred which too stood rejected. After rejection of the revision petition, the petitioners approached this Court and by order dated 6.8.1999 while issuing notice to Opp. Party No.2, this Court directed that there shall be stay of further proceeding in Complaint Case No.1107 of 1995 in the court below till further orders. Subsequently, on 15.9.2000, the petition was admitted and this Court directed that in the meantime, interim order dated 6.8.1999 shall continue. 4. Sri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging both the orders, submits that on perusal of the complaint petition it appears that the dispute is of purely civil in nature and for such allegation , Opp. Party no.2 may not be allowed to initiate the criminal proceeding. He further submits that with respect to the same dispute, the complainant has also filed a civil suit. In sum and substance, he submits that criminal court is not competent to decide title or possession over the land in question. On these grounds, he has prayed for quashing of the orders. 5. Sri Damodar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 6. I have also examined the complaint petition as well as the order passed by the learned Magistrate, Siwan and the order dated 12.11.1998 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan. From the order dated 7.10.1996 , which was passed at the stage of charge, it is clear that even the husband of petitioner no.2 had deposed that he had never executed any deed of gift in favour of petitioner no.2 and, as such, I am of the view that there is substance in the allegation made in the complaint petition. There is no error either in the order dated 7.10.1996 or order dated 12.11.1998. 7. In the facts and circumstances as mentioned herein above, I am of the view that the petition has got no merit. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 8. In view of the rejection of this petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith.