Prayag Singh @ Ram Prayag Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23637 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -122 Year- 2013 Thana -SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSARAN =========================================================== Prayag Singh @ Ram Prayag Singh Son of Late Ram Binod Singh Resident of Village-Aami, P.S.-Dighwara, District-Saran (Chapra) .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Upendra Rai Son of Amarnath Rai Rsident of Village-Kothiya Pran Ke Tola, P.S.-Awtar Nagar, District-Saran (Chapra) .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mayanand Jha, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-07-2017 1.
Heard both sides.
2.
This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 06.05.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Cr. Revision No. 53 of 2014 whereunder the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision and refused to interfere with the order of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra passed on 31.07.2013 in Complaint Case no. 122 of 2013. 3.
The O.P. no. 2 (complainant) filed a Complaint Case no. 122 of 2013 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra alleging inter alia that this petitioner did not issue rent receipt in his favour rather he issued rent receipt with respect to different raiyat and land
and thereby committed offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
4.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Halka Karmchari and he issued rent receipt on the basis of Jamabandi standing in the name of raiyat. The allegation of cheating the complainant is not specific as he has not mentioned in whose favour the receipt was issued. The learned Magistrate has passed the order in a very mechanical manner without applying the judicial mind. The learned Sessions Judge also did not consider this aspect and so both the impugned orders are fit to be quashed. 5.
Learned APP, on the other hand, opposed the submissions. 6.
On perusal of the complaint petition and annexures available on record, I find that the O.P. no. 2 has simply alleged that this petitioner did not issue rent receipt in his favour. According to the O.P. no. 2, the land in question was his ancestral land and the Jamabandi was standing in the name of his grand father Ratan Ray. After death of his grand father, the land came in his possession and so the rent receipt ought to have been issued in the name of his father. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that the Halka Karamchari acts and issues rent receipts as per Jamabandi standing in the name of raiyat. He had or has no authority to issue rent receipts in the name of person other than the Jamabandi holder. It is not a case that the petitioner refused to
issue the receipt as per record. The petitioner (Halka Karmachari) had no authority to correct Jamabandi. The O.P. no. 2 ought to have filed an application before Circle Officer who was the competent authority for correcting the Jamabandi. He had remedy to file appeal before the competent authority i.e. Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) in case of refusal to issue receipt. The allegation of cheating is omnibus as the complainant has not mentioned the name of raiyat in whose favour the petitioner issued a rent receipt. It appears that the learned Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge have no considered this aspect. The allegation of cheating is quite vague.
7.
In view of the discussions made above, I find that the impugned order taking cognizance is not sustainable. The order dated 06.05.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra is hereby quashed and this Cr. Misc. application is allowed. (Sanjay Kumar, J) rohit/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 12.07.2017 Transmission Date 12.07.2017