Md. Shakeel Ejal And ANR. v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.12187 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1606 Year- 2013 Thana -BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictBHAGALPUR ===========================================================
1. Md. Shakeel Ejal
2. Md. Sharbar Both Son of Md. Yunus. Resident of Village- Hussainabad. Police stationMojahidpur, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Md. Iqbal Ahmad son of Sheikh Shefayat Resident of Mohalla- Sahebganj, Police Station- Visvidyalaya, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Md. Najmul Hodda For the Opposite Party/s : Meena Singh, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-01-2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners seek quashing the order of cognizance dated 25.11.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 1606 of 2013 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur thereby taking cognizance of offence under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code issued summons to stand trial. The brief fact giving rise to the case is that the accused persons deal in sale and purchase of the land. On the alleged date of occurrence, when the complainant went to his land saw the accused
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12187 of 2015 dt.09-01-2018 2/3 persons demolishing portion of 7 feet boundary wall and when he asked them why you are doing such act then one of the accused said that he had promised to sell the land within a month, but he did not do so, therefore, they are taking possession of the land. They demolished boundary wall and took out Rs. 2000/- from his pocket and mobile set and also assaulted with fist and leg, any how he escaped away. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that it is a civil dispute as Title Suit No. 170 of 2014 is going on, but the accused persons are not the parties either as plaintiff or defendant in that suit, and no prima facie case of assault and theft is made out.
Contrary to that the learned counsel for the State submits that there is specific allegation that the accused persons forcibly demolished the boundary wall of the complainant, as they intended to purchase it but the complainant refused to sell the land so subsequently, they assaulted and committed theft and it is also an admitted position that there is no any title dispute between complainant and the petitioners.
Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that the allegations levelled in the complaint disclose the offence in which cognizance has been taken and there is no material on record to show that any title suit is sub
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12187 of 2015 dt.09-01-2018 3/3 judice in between the petitioner and the complainant. So, this application stands dismissed.
(Arun Kumar, J) ajay gupta/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date19.01.2018 Transmission Date 19.01.2018