Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 683 (PAT)

Noorul Haque v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-08

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the Opposite Party No. 2 and the APP appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 25.4.2007 passed in Manjhagarh Police Station Case No. 7 of 2006 by which the Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 384, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioners went on the land having Khata No. 79 and Khesra No. 668, 669 and 670 and stopped the informant from cutting the paddy crops. It is said that they demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and also fired and threw brick bats on the informant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case arises out of a civil dispute and that is why the present First Information Report has been instituted. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 submits that the offences alleged constitute criminal offence and even it there is a civil dispute pending with respect to the said land, the petitioners cannot take the law into their own hands, and commit the offences alleged. 5. The facts are that the ex-landlord Rajendra Singh had two sons, Shambhu Sharan Singh and Radha Mohan Singh. The petitioners case is that Shambhu Sharan Singh on his behalf and on behalf of his minor brother Radha Mohan Singh executed Pattas on 20.5.1948 in favour of Baliram Singh. Krishna Bihari Singh, son of Baliram Singh sold the land on 16.12.2000 to the petitioners. 6. The case of the Opposite Party No. 2 is that they are the purchasers from the sons of Shambhu Sharan Singh and Radha Mohan Singh. It is said that there was a Title Suit No. 76 of 1967 filed by Baliram Singh against one Ayodhya Prasad who had got a declaration in his favour in a proceed- ing under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Shambhu Sharan Singh and Radha Mohan Singh intervened in the case and both claimed that they were minors at the time of execution of the said Pattas in question. Baliram Singh lost the suit. He filed a Title Appeal No. 101 of 1982, Misc. Case No. 14 of 1994, two civil revisions and lost in all the proceedings. 7. Shambhu Sharan Singh and Radha Mohan Singh intervened in the case and both claimed that they were minors at the time of execution of the said Pattas in question. Baliram Singh lost the suit. He filed a Title Appeal No. 101 of 1982, Misc. Case No. 14 of 1994, two civil revisions and lost in all the proceedings. 7. Counsel for the petitioners sub- mits that the petitioners have filed Title Suit No. 173 of 2009 praying therein that no effect should be given to the degree passed in Title Suit No. 76 of 1967. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that a land acquisition proceeding was in- itiated in the year 1977 and the degree and judgment of Title Suit No. 76 of 1967 was never given effect as the compensation was paid to Baliram Singh in the land acquisition proceedings. 8. In the facts aforesaid, it is admitted that there is a civil dispute with respect to the property. Both parties are claiming the property from Shambhu Sharan Singh and Radha Mohan Singh. 9. Coming to the allegations in the First Information Report, counsel for the petitioners submits that infact the allegations are not believable in view of the fact that the petitioners who claim to be the owners of the property would not be satisfied with a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose of allowing any person to harvest paddy crops. It is also submitted that no offence is made out under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code which is the defining section provides that "if any person is put in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted in to a valuable security commits extortion." Admittedly, the occurrence ended in brick batting, firing etc. The question whether there was a threat or not would be examined after examining the evidence available in the case diary. The stage for examining whether the offence is made out or not is not the stage of cognizance. At the stage of cognizance, the Court has merely to examine that whether a primafacie case is made out or not. 10. The stage for examining whether the offence is made out or not is not the stage of cognizance. At the stage of cognizance, the Court has merely to examine that whether a primafacie case is made out or not. 10. Accordingly, I see no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. This application is thus dismissed. 11. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise issues of whether a particular section would apply or not at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.