AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present case has arisen out of order dated
19.08.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar in
connection with Complaint Case No. C1/190 of 2013, Trial No. 1055
of 2013, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has taken
cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of
the Indian Penal Code.
The Opposite Party No.2 herein, i.e. Nawal Kishore
Singh, had filed a complaint Case No. C1/190 of 2013, Trial No. 1055
of 2013 dated 10.06.2013 before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sheohar, inter alia, stating therein that the land, pertaining
to khata no. 283 and 284 containing different khesra number, once
registered in the name of his deceased father and cousin brother,
namely, Hari Kishore Singh and out of the said land, some land had
been sold, but still the accused persons in connivance with the
officials of the Circle office had obtained certificate regarding
ownership of the land which is in possession of the complainant and
his cousin brother. It has been alleged that the accused persons,
namely, Arbind Kumar Singh and Mukesh Kumar Singh had obtained
the aforesaid ownership certificates, though they do not have anything
to do with the said land. After the complainant received information
about the said accused persons obtaining ownership certificate of the
land, the matter was placed before the village Panches, but the matter
could not be settled, hence the complaint has been filed.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar by an order
an order dated 19.08.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. C1/190 of
2013, has found a prima facie case against the accused persons,
namely, Arbind Kumar Singh and Mukesh Kumar Singh, however,
summons have also been directed to be issued against the petitioners
herein under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the I.P.C.
The aforesaid order dated 19.08.2013 is under
challenge in the present case.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that a bare perusal of the allegations levelled in the complaint case
would show that the dispute is civil in nature. It has also been
submitted that the allegations are against Arbind Kumar Singh and
Mukesh Kumar Singh primarily and the petitioners herein have no
role to play. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further
referred to an order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Sheohar in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 36 of 2014 wherein
the accused Mukesh Kumar Singh and Arbind Kumar Singh had filed
a petition for grant of anticipatory bail, to show that a compromise has
been entered into between the parties and the complainant i.e. Nawal
Kishore Singh has also appeared and verified the compromise and
only thereafter, the said accused persons were directed to be enlarged
on anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further
contended that the petitioners are government servants and some
mistake had taken place, which was subsequently rectified.
At this juncture, it may be pointed out that though, the
Opposite Party No.2 had entered appearance through an Advocate, the
said Advocate has failed to appear despite second call having been
made, hence it appears that, the Opposite Party No.2 has lost his
interest in the case on account of the matter having been settled by
way of the aforesaid compromise entered into between the parties.
I have gone through the materials on record of the
case and I find that the allegations levelled in the complaint petition
are purely civil in nature and do not constitute any penal offence. The
fact of the matter is that the complainant- Opposite Party No.2 had
himself appeared before the learned trial court in the proceedings
pertaining to grant of anticipatory bail to two of the accused persons
and had made statement that the matter has been amicably settled and
compromise has been arrived at. In such view of the matter, I find that
though the entire dispute is civil in nature and no criminal offence is
made out, however, since the parties have amicably settled the matter,
no useful purpose would be served by permitting the criminal
prosecution to continue. I therefore, quash the order dated 19.08.2013
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar in connection with
Complaint Case No. C1/190 of 2013, Trial No. 1055 of 2013 by
which the learned court below has taken cognizance and further set
aside the entire criminal prosecution emanating therefrom.
The petition is allowed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.