JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 21.08.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar, whereby and where under, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar has dismissed the criminal revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 04.08.2018, passed in Complaint Case No. 239 of 2018 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Deoghar has found prima facie case against the petitioners for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 380, 427, 452, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also to quash the said order dated 04.08.2018, passed in Complaint Case No. 239 of 2018. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons on 15.02.2018, trespassed to the shop of the complainant-opposite party no.2, caused simple hurt to him, committed theft of gold chain, criminally intimidated him and committed mischief by throwing the articles of the shop hither and tither. The learned Magistrate, basing upon the materials in the record i.e. the complaint petition, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant as also the statement of the inquiry witnesses found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 323, 380, 427, 452 & 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2019 before the Sessions Judge, Deoghar, which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar, vide his order dated 21.08.2019 observed, relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in AIR 1972 SC 2639 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the enquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. is only for ascertaining whether there is evidence in support of the complainant, so as to justify the issue of process. State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in AIR 1972 SC 2639 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the enquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. is only for ascertaining whether there is evidence in support of the complainant, so as to justify the issue of process. Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. does not say that a regular trial of adjudging the truth or otherwise of the person complained against should take place at that stage, for such a person can be called upon to answer the accusation made against him only when a process has been issued and he is on trial and on the basis of the said ratio of the Judgment, considering the facts of the case, no illegality was found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the criminal revision. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the criminal proceeding is actuated with malice. It is then submitted that the petitioners filed Title (D) Suit No. 116 of 2004 against the complainant with a prayer for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of possession. It is then submitted that to pressurize the petitioners, this false case has been foisted by the complainant-opposite party no.2. It is then submitted that no case for the offence in respect of which the learned Magistrate found prima facie case is made out in the facts of this case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. It is then submitted that no case for the offence in respect of which the learned Magistrate found prima facie case is made out in the facts of this case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 271 wherein in the facts of that case where none of the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code have been found to exist; after the investigation was complete against the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code; in the facts of that case, neither the F.I.R. nor the charge sheet contained any reference to the essential requirements underlying Section 420 of I.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that continuation of the proceeding against the appellant will amount to abuse of process of court where a civil dispute is sought to be given the colour of a criminal wrongdoing and quashed the charge sheet submitted by the police. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha Chakraborty and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 90 wherein in the facts of that case, when the complainant suppressed the adverse orders in the interlocutory application passed in a civil suit between the parties and as in the facts of that case, the said adverse order in the interlocutory application in the civil suit; amounted prima facie to a finding and conclusion arrived at by the civil court, that the respondent-complainant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, stands removed from the post of Secretary and also from the trusteeship of the trust, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the facts of the case qua the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed and set aside the F.I.R. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra) as also the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha Chakraborty and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra) as also the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha Chakraborty and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Another (supra), the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 21.08.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar, whereby and where under, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar dismissed the criminal revision filed by the petitioners, against the order dated 04.08.2018, passed in Complaint Case No. 239 of 2018 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Deoghar has found prima facie case against the petitioners under Section 323, 380, 427, 452, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also the order dated 04.08.2018, passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 239 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Deoghar found prima facie case against the petitioners under Sections 323, 380, 427, 452, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside. 7. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand defends the order dated 21.08.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar and the order dated 04.08.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Deoghar in connection with Complaint Case No. 239 of 2018 and submits that there is absolutely no illegality in the said orders. It is next submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing each of the offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate found prima facie case i.e. for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 380, 427, 452 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that the facts of this case are different from the facts of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra) and Usha Chakraborty and Another Vs. It is next submitted that the facts of this case are different from the facts of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra) and Usha Chakraborty and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Another (supra) as in this case, there is no suppression of the fact about the pendency of the Title Suit between the parties; because in answer to the question put by the court to the complainant in his statement under solemn affirmation, he has categorically disclosed about the same and in this case, no adverse order has been passed in any interlocutory application in civil suit against the complainant. It is next submitted that merely because of the pendency of the civil suit, wherein the complainant admits to be not in possession of the civil suit by making a prayer for recovery of possession; will not be a ground to stifle a legitimate prosecution of the petitioners for resorting to criminal acts for pressurizing the complainant to not to contest the said civil suit. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of having committed the said offences. The learned Magistrate has rightly found that basing upon the materials in the record prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 380, 427, 452 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code is found and there is absolutely no illegality in the said order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2019 nor any such illegality has been attributed even in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2019. Further the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra) and Usha Chakraborty and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Another (supra). Hence the ratio of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra) and Usha Chakraborty and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Another (supra) is not applicable to this case. 9. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra) and Usha Chakraborty and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Another (supra). Hence the ratio of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra) and Usha Chakraborty and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Another (supra) is not applicable to this case. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 21.08.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar and the order dated 04.08.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar in connection with Complaint Case No. 239 of 2018. 10. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.