Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 823 (PAT)

Saheb Singh v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-20

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2010
JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Complainant/O.P. No. 2. 2. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 1.8.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Siwan in case No. C 530/98 leading to Trial No. 1148/98 relating to offences under Sections 323 and 379 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order of cognizance on a simple but effective plea that by a judgment of the Civil Court rendered after contest between the parties dated 17.3.1997 the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and as purchasers from the ancestors of the plaintiffs, these petitioners got the benefit of such judgment and decree of the Civil Court in March, 1997 and on that basis a dispute between the parties pending under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dropped on 30.5.1997. According to case of the petitioners after the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, on 17.5.1998 the alleged occurrence of crop cutting took place in which the complainant claimed to be in possession over the land. 4. In substance, the point raised on behalf of the petitioners is that after a valid judgment and decree of the Civil Court there can be no room for adjudication by a criminal Court as regards the possession of the petitioners in respect of same very land which was subject matter of the title suit. 5. The contention raised above has substance in law. The judgment and decree of a Civil Court is binding upon the parties and has to be respected by the criminal Court. However, the said judgment is not available on record and copy of the decree merely shows that Title Suit bearing No. 196/1974 was decreed from the Court of Sub-Judge, V, Siwan on 17.3.1997. What were the findings given by learned Sessions Judge in respect of possession of the parties over the land involved in this case not being available before this Court, it is not possible to hold one way or the other whether the particular order of cognizance under challenge should be quashed or not. What were the findings given by learned Sessions Judge in respect of possession of the parties over the land involved in this case not being available before this Court, it is not possible to hold one way or the other whether the particular order of cognizance under challenge should be quashed or not. If the judgment of the Civil Court would have been available and would have shown that the plaintiffs who were vendors were found in possession over the land in question then this Court would have interfered and quashed the criminal proceeding. Learned counsel for the O. P. No. 2 was also unable to produce a copy of the judgment of the Civil Court. However, it will not serve any useful purpose to keep this matter pending and, accordingly, it is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to produce the judgment and decree of the Civil Court before the Court below and pray for discharge. If the contentions noticed above advanced on behalf of the petitioners are found true by the Court below after perusing the judgment and decree of the Civil Court in that case the Magistrate would be well advised to consider the prayer for discharge favorably in accordance with law.