Nazamuddin And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20414 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1429 Year-2013 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPurnia ======================================================

1. Nazamuddin Son of Late Noor Mohammad

2. Amiruddin Son of Nazamuddin, Both resident of village- Mohammadpur, P.S. K. Nagar, DistrictPurnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Md. Faroque, Son of Late Tajmmul Hussain, resident of villageMohammadpur, P.S. K. Nagar, District- Purnea. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. R.P.S.Singh (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 23-03-2018 Having heard learned counsel for the parties it is seen that on the vague and omnibus allegation that in the morning of 19.05.2013 when the complainant-opposite party no.2 was going through his field, the petitioners herein demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of sale of his wife's land, the complaint has been registered without there being any other allegation or material to show that an offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. On the contrary, on a perusal of the record it seems that there is a civil dispute with regard to possession of the land in question and in the garb of the aforesaid civil dispute on the vague allegation, as indicated hereinabove and as is evident from the statement of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20414 of 2015(3) dt.23-03-2018 2/2 complainant on SA, the complaint has been registered. In my considered view, a complete reading of the complaint does not make out an offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code and at best it would be a civil dispute with regard to dispossession of the complainant or his wife from their land for which making a complaint is not a proper remedy. Accordingly, finding an ingredient necessary for constitution of an offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code not made out on a bare reading of the statement of the complainant, this application is allowed, order dated 17.07.2014 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purena in Complaint Case No.1429 of 2013 stands quashed. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) Sunil/- U T