Malti Devi wife of Dina Nath Manjhi resident of village Sheorajpur v. P.S. Kuchaikot District Goplaganj
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.5957 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Bhagrasan Manjhi @ Bhagran Manjhi son of Late Faudi Manjhi. 2. Kamlesh Manjhi son f Ram Nath Manjhi. 3. Lal Bahadur Manjhi son of Ram nath manjhi. 4. Ram nath Manjhi son of Late Faudi Manjhi. 5. Punam Devi wifeof Kamlesh Manjhi. 6. Ranku devi alias Rinki devi wife of Lal Bahdur Manjhi All resident of village-Sheorajpur. P.S. Kuchaikot, District-Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s 1. State of Bihar. 2. Malti Devi wife of Dina Nath Manjhi resident of village Sheorajpur, Versus P.S. Kuchaikot District Goplaganj. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ghulam Rabbani, Adv. For the Opposite Party no. 2 : Mr. Dharam Veer, Adv. For the State : Mr. G.P.Yadav, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 4 24-09-2013
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP 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 25.07.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 1688 of 2012, Trial No. 4624 of 2012 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 420/465 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the complaint, it is stated that one Fauji Manjhi 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5957 of 2013 (4) dt.24-09-2013 2 / 5 had four sons namely, Sheo Manjhi, Singashan Manjhi, Bhagrasan Manjhi and Ram Nath Manjhi. Upon his death, all the four brothers got the property of late Fauji Manjhi equally partitioned among themselves. It is stated that from Sheo Manjhi, the complainant and her co-sister got registered 11 Kathas 2¾ dhur land in their name in which 8½ dhur of land was homestead. It is further stated that in Khata no. 144, Plot no. 461, land ad measuring 5 dhur 10 dhurki was also bought by the complainant from Singashan Manjhi which was the land in his share having devolved from his late father Fauji Manjhi. The said sale deed is dated 30.12.2011. It is thereafter stated that the same piece of land was given through a deed of gift dated 08.02.2012 by the petitioner no. 1 in favour of petitioners no. 5 and 6. It is alleged that the land which was bought by the complainant from Singashan Manjhi was the same land which was transferred by petitioner no. 1 in favour of the petitioners no. 5 and 6 in collusion with other petitioners. It is further stated that when the complainant went to the petitioner no. 1 for getting clarification, she was assaulted and her clothes were torn causing loss of Rs. 1000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioner no. 1 as well as his brother Sheo Manjhi and his other two brothers each got a share of 5 dhur 10 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5957 of 2013 (4) dt.24-09-2013 3 / 5 dhurki of land from their late father Fauji Manjhi. It is submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner no. 1 had transferred land beyond his share but the only allegation is that the same land which was bought by the complainant from the brother of petitioner no. 1 had been transferred in favour of petitioners no. 5 and 6. Even in this regard, it is submitted that from perusal of the sale deed in favour of the complainant and the deed of gift in favour of petitioners no. 5 and 6, it would be apparent that the boundaries do not match and the map attached at the end of the deed also do not disclose that both the piece of land in the two deeds are one and the same. Leaned counsel submits that the dispute is purely civil in nature for which the criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court. It is further submitted that the complainant if at all had any grievance, should have approached her vendor for clarification or getting possession over the land which was bought by her and that she cannot hold the petitioner no. 1 responsible for any criminal offence if he has transferred his own share of the land in favour of anyone. Learned counsel also submits that in that view of the matter, the allegation of assault and tearing of the clothes of the complainant is also falsified, moreso, in view of the fact that the Court below itself has not believed such incident and has taken cognizance only under Sections 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. It is 4 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5957 of 2013 (4) dt.24-09-2013 4 / 5 submitted that the ingredients of Sections 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code are not fulfilled inasmuch as there is neither any cheating or dishonest inducement for delivery of property nor any forgery committed by the petitioner no. 1. Learned APP for the State submits that from the allegation in the complaint, it is apparent that the dispute is purely of a civil nature. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party no. 2 opposes the application and submits that the petitioner no. 1 had transferred the land which was bought by the petitioner in favour of others. However, he submits that liberty may be given to Opposite Party no. 2 to institute appropriate civil proceeding for getting possession and demarcation of the land which she has got from Singashan Manjhi. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. It is apparent from the plain reading of the complaint that grievance is with regard to the land which was bought by the complainant from another vendor, whereas the allegation is that the petitioner no. 1 had transferred same land in favour of petitioners no. 5 and 6 which had been bought by the complainant. This Court finds that from the copies of the sale deed in favour of the complainant and 5 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5957 of 2013 (4) dt.24-09-2013 5 / 5 the gift deed in favour of the petitioners no. 5 and 6 executed by the petitioner no. 1, it cannot be said that the lands are identical inasmuch as the boundaries described therein and the map also appears to be different. However, for any certainty, it is only a competent Court of civil jurisdiction which can finally decide the matter one way or the other. The Court itself not having believed the fact of any assault or loss caused to the complainant due to such assault and tearing of clothes and which was not objected by the complainant, the only allegation which remains is purely of a civil nature for which, in the considered opinion of this Court, criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 1688 of 2012/Trial No. 4624 of 2012, including the order taking cognizance dated 25.07.2012, is quashed. However, the present order shall not prejudice the case of either of the parties if the matter is taken for adjudication before a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The application stands allowed. Prakash/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)