Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1144 (PAT)

Jugut Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar

2013-09-20

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
ANJANA PRAKASH, J.:–The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Madhubani in C.R. No.947 of 2006 (Trial No.2991 of 2006). 2. The case of the Complainant is that the accused persons made her sign on some stamp paper on the representation that she would get pension. Later on she learnt that her signature had been taken on sale-deeds as witness to sell off her lands. 3. The submission of the Petitioners is that this allegation is merely oral in nature and without any documentary proof which was required for an allegation of this kind. The Petitioners further submit that the fact of the matter is that the Petitioners No.1 to 3 have executed two sale-deeds in favour of Petitioner No.4 on 1.8.2006 in respect to a certain piece of land in which there are three witnesses including the Complainant and the Petitioner No.5 is the identifier of the witnesses. The said land was sold by the Petitioners No.1 to 3 since they had got the said land from their ancestor who had got patta from Darbhanga Raj before vesting of jamindari. The Petitioners No.1 to 3 having come to know that in the new Revisional survey map the Complainant’s name had been entered with regard to their land, they immediately filed a petition under Section 106 of the B.T. Act vide Case No.2789 of 1989 dated 20.6.1989. Taking advantage of the wrong entry the present Complaint has been filed. 4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Complainant submits that since cognizable offences are made out in the Complaint, therefore they should be prosecuted. 5. Having gone through the Complaint petition and the fact that there is no documentary support to the same as also that much before the present Complaint the Petitioners had taken steps for correcting the details of the land in the survey records, I am inclined to hold that the present prosecution is a gross abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be set aside. 6. Hence, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Madhubani in C.R. No.947 of 2006 (Trial No.2991 of 2006) is hereby set aside.