Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5662 of 2013 ====================================================== Pramila Singh @ Pramila Devi W/O Mahendra Pratap Singh Resident of House No. A-9, Anand Vihar, Anishabad, Opposite Police Colony, Patna, P.S- Phulwari Sharif, District and Town- Patna. Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State of Bihar 2. Azaj Hasami @ Hiraji S/O Late Saiyad Saidul Haq Resident of Adarsh Colony, P.S- Koire Tola, Town, Bettiah, District- West Champaran. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan & Mr. Ambarish Kumar, Advocates For the Opposite Parties : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 3. 13-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) seeks quashing of order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah, West Champaran in Complaint Case No. 1234 C of 2010 by which cognizance has been taken under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code as well
Facts
as the entire prosecution arising out of the said complaint case. The allegation against the petitioner is that despite receiving certain amount of money and promising to transfer land in favour of the complainant, the money was not returned 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5662 of 2013 (3) dt.13-09-2013 2 / 4 and the land was transferred in favour of someone else. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the entire reading of the complaint it is clear that the dispute is of purely civil nature. It is submitted that the petitioner is an old lady over 70 years of age and that the land belonging to her has been transferred way back on 10.07.2009, that is, much prior to institution of the complaint case. It is also submitted that the allegation in the complaint case is unbelievable for the simple reason that taking of Rs. 55,000/- by the petitioner without there being any receipt for the same cannot be accepted in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that in spite of transfer of the land on 10.07.2009, still there are allegations in the complaint that the complainant was in touch with the petitioner for transfer of the said land and finally on 18.05.2010 it is alleged that the petitioner refused to return the money and was ready for a fight and also refused to transfer the land in question, which is unbelievable. Learned counsel has submitted that even during the course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code the conduct of the witnesses as well as their statements clearly go to show that they are set up witnesses and cannot be relied upon and further that there are material
Legal Reasoning
also relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Rubi Kumari vs. State of Bihar reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 647; Dr. Ashok Kumar Jha vs. State of Bihar reported in 2012 (3) PLJR 91; Kamlakant Sinha vs. State of Bihar reported in 2012 (3) PLJR 501; P. N. Choudhary vs. State of Bihar reported in 2012 (3) PLJR 892 and Chandra Shekhar Jha vs. State of Bihar reported in 2013 (2) PLJR 571. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the petitioner, having accepted money for transfer of her land, is obliged to at least return the money. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submits that he was unaware of the land already having been transferred in favour of some other person prior to filing of 4 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5662 of 2013 (3) dt.13-09-2013 4 / 4 the complaint case and on that score the allegation becomes more serious since the petitioner in spite of transferring the land to someone else had still kept the complainant under the impression that she would transfer the land in his favour. Upon considering the rival contentions, this Court is in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. From the entire complaint petition it is obvious that at best, even if the allegations are taken to be true, the same are clearly of civil nature for which criminal proceedings ought not to have been initiated. It is also obvious that to exert undue pressure in a purely civil matter, the complaint case has been lodged. This Court further finds that the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are relevant and applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and support the contentions put forward by him. Accordingly, this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code, quashes the entire proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 1234 C of 2010/Trial No. 2171 of 2012 including the order taking cognizance dated 12.09.2011. The application stands allowed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anand Kr.
Arguments
contradictions in their deposition. Learned counsel submits that the Courts have interfered in matters where it is apparent that the criminal prosecution is based on absurd and improbable allegations and used as a tool for harassment and also to exert 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5662 of 2013 (3) dt.13-09-2013 3 / 4 undue pressure in matters which are purely civil in nature and for which the remedy lies before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. It is thus submitted that it is a fit case where the Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the entire proceeding arising out of the Complaint Case as well as the impugned order taking cognizance. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rama Devi vs. State of Bihar reported in 2011 (1) PLJR (SC) 20 as well as Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan vs. Ram Gopal Poddar reported in 2011 (1) PLJR (SC) 23. He has