Shamim Haider v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8870 of 2013 Arising out of P.S. Case No. -368 Year- 2011 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District- Patna ======================================================== Shamim Haider S/o Late Md. Matiullah Resident of Flat No. 405, Sharf Apartment, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Ram Dayal Prasad S/o Late Nagina Prasad Resident of MohallaKisan Colony, Phase-II, P.S.- Fulwari Sharif (Beur), DistrictPatna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ======================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Asha Kumari, APP. ======================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-05-2015 No one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 on two consecutive dates.

The Petitioner seeks quashing of the order of cognizance dated 11.04.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 368(C) of 2011 so far as he is concerned.

The case of the Complainant is that he and the son of the Petitioner were on good terms. The younger brother of Complainant in 2006 wanted to sell his share in the house of his mother for a certain price. In order to purchase the so-called share the Complainant took a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the Petitioner by mortgaging original sale deed of his mother's house. Later on when he returned the money and asked for the documents it was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8870 of 2013 dt.12-05-2015 learnt that the son of the Petitioner had mortgaged the same in the bank for taking cash credit of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that even conceding the allegations in the First Information Report it is apparent that all transaction were between the Petitioner's son and the Complainant where the Petitioner had no role to play. He has been dragged only for the reason of creating a pressure upon his son so as to come to a compromise.

Having gone through the Complaint Petition, I am inclined to agree with the submission so raised. Hence, the proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 11.04.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 368(C) of 2011 is, hereby, set aside so far as the Petitioner is concerned.

The Application stands allowed.

However, this order shall not prejudice any party in any manner.

Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.) U T