Om Prakash Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43163 of 2010 (9) dt.25-11-2013 name of the father of the complainant. Subsequently, the said land got recorded in the name of the complainant in Register-II under Jamabandi no. 122 and he is paying rent to the State of Bihar. It is further alleged that accused Om Prakash Singh and petitioner Jitendra Singh and his two other brothers made an application before the Circle Officer, Amnour Block for creating a separate Jamabandi claiming their father to be dead, so that they may pay the land rent as per their respective share. Consequently, Jamabandi Batwara Case No. 50 of 1992/93 was instituted for partition of lands under Khata No. 33. Survey Plot No. 204 measuring an area of 1 khata 18 dhurs was not included in the jamabandi partition case, as it was not recorded in the name of father of the petitioner and his brothers. The accused Ram Babu Sah, Revenue Karmchari of Amnour Block in connivance with the petitioner and his brother Om Prakash Singh, included jamabandi of Survey Plot No.

204, measuring an area of 1 katha 18 dhurs in the jamabandi of the petitioner and his brother Om Prakash. The complainant came to know about this fact, when the jamabandi records were produced in Title Suit No. 96 of 1997 and thereafter the complaint was filed. Learned Magistrate after examining the complaint on S.A. and other witnesses directed for issuance of process after Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43163 of 2010 (9) dt.25-11-2013 taking of cognizance under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant claims his title over Survey Plot no. 204 by virtue of a deed of exchange executed between the father of the complainant and father of the petitioner. The same was brought on record as Annexure-3 to suggest that exchanged plots are of Khata no. 47, Plot nos. 1 and 55 and it does not reflect that Plot no.

204 is included in the exchange deed. Moreover, for the redressal of the said grievance the petitioner filed Title Suit no. 96 of 1997, which was decreed in favour of the complainant. Title Appeal No. 100 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree passed in the Title suit, which is still pending. The revenue record suggests that Plot no. 204 is still recorded in the name of the petitioner and his brothers. The Jamabandi with regard to Survey Plot no. 204 was created in the year 2005, whereas the present application was filed in the year

2007. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the complainant came to know about the creation of Jamabandi with respect to Survey Plot no. 204, when the documents to that effect were produced in Title Suit no. 96 of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43163 of 2010 (9) dt.25-11-2013

1997. The opposite party is in possession of the land in question and even in the Title Suit, the claim of the opposite party was recognized and the same has been decreed in his favour. Moreover, in Jamabandi Batwara Case no. 50 of 1992-93, which was between the brothers of the petitioners, the Survey Plot no. 204 was not included. Considering the rival contention of the parties, this Court is of the view that unquestionably the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature and criminal forum has been chosen for redressal of the same and such act has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC Indian Ltd. and others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 and para-13 of which reads as follows :- “13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors.

Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, imminent a to settle civil settlement. Any effort disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be likelihood of breakdown Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43163 of 2010 (9) dt.25-11-2013 deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P this Court observed: (SCC p. 643, para 8) “It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.