Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 690 (PAT)

Rukmini Devi v. Dharnikant Issar

2013-06-25

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the State. 2. The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 13.10.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna City, in G.R. No. 1085 of 1995, T.R. No. 513 of 1999 by which he has taken cognizance and summoned the Petitioners under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased a certain piece of land from Sheo Nagar Co-operative Housing Construction Society, Bahadurpur, and a sale deed was executed in his favour on 26.9.1984 as also the land was mutated in his name. He then put a pillar and boundary wall on the said land. Subsequently, the occupant of the adjoining Plot informed him that somebody else was putting a boundary wall on his land. He then enquired in to the matter and found out that the Petitioners claimed to be purchasers of the land through a false sale deed allegedly executed by him. 4. The Complaint was sent under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. for investigation. After due investigation, the Police submitted Final Report in the matter on 31.10.1996. The Court did not pass any order upon the same. Subsequently, the Complainant filed a protest petition and the Court examined him as the witnesses and took cognizance in the matter. 5. It appears that for the same cause of action Title Suit No. 84 of 1997 has been filed on 6.8.1997. The Petitioners are Defendants No. 1 and 2 in the said Suit and had appeared and filed written statement that they are bonafide purchasers and have Title over the land. The sale deed originally executed by the Co-operative Society in favour of the Opposite Party No. 1 was also in their possession, they submitted. 6. It appears that for the same cause of action which dispute is primarily civil in nature, a Title Suit is pending between the parties and, hence, the present proceeding would be superfluous and a gross abuse of the process of the Court. 7. Hence, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 13.10.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna City, in G.R. No. 1085 of 1995, T.R. No. 513 of 1999, is hereby quashed. 8. 7. Hence, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 13.10.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna City, in G.R. No. 1085 of 1995, T.R. No. 513 of 1999, is hereby quashed. 8. However, quashment of the present proceeding shall have no bearing of any civil litigation pending between the parties. Application allowed.