Dilip Kumar Singh and Others vs The State of Bihar and Another

Mihir Kumar Jha, J.—Heard Counsel for the petitioners. In this case, by an order dated 18.12.2006 notices were issued to the complainant-opposite party No. 2. From the record, it transpired that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had also appeared through the Counsel, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate of this Court but at least on last three dates, when this matter has been taken up i.e. on 14.8.2007, 27.9.2007 and on 5.10.2007, Counsel for the complainant-opposite party No. 2 did not choose to appear.

Having heard Counsel for the petitioners, I am satisfied that the present case relating to the or taking cognizance, dated 9.5.2005 in Complaint Case No. 1995(C) of 2004 for offences under Sections 452, 341, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code is simply not sustainable on the ground that it was basically a civil dispute between a landlord and tenant. The complainant-opposite party No. 2, a tenant at that point of time while he was residing in the house of the petitioner, landlord, had filed this case in order to create pressure on the landlord-petitioner and his family members. The fact remains that the ownership of the petitioner as with regard to this house had been questioned by another tenant claiming himself to be owner who came out with a case that the petitioner was in fact a tenant. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 became supporter of the another proclaimed owner and because (Sic- became?) his mouth piece for disturbing the petitioner by filing the present complaint case in order to create evidence for that ongoing dispute, also does not appear to be incorrect. Be that as it may, when today a supplementary affidavit has been filed today that the rented premises being a shop has been vacated by Opposite Party No. 2 in December, 2005 and he has also abandoned in making pairvi in the case filed by him under B.B.C. Act. I believe that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal prosecution against the petitioners. As I have indicated above, even on facts there is hardly any material to make out an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, in this case. Consequently, taking into consideration the different aspect of the whole case, as also the subsequent events, the present application is allowed and the entire prosecution including the impugned order is quashed.