JAIPRAKASH Vs. RUDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been summoned by the Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Basti, under Sections 420, 109 and 427,i. P. C. in pursuance of a complaint (Annexure "1") filed by the opposite party. I have perused the complaint. It is stated that the complainant had obtained a sale-deed of the land involved from Hira, son of Kirpa Shanker, under sale-deed dated 22. 8. 1978. The complainant filed an application for mutation and the vendor admitted the complainant's claim. The accused person 1 to 4 filed a wrong and fictitious objection on the basis of oral settlement. Thereafter they also filed a mutation case on 26. 9. 1978. It is alleged that the case has been filed to dishonestly appropriate the complainant's property causing a loss of Rs. 30000/ -. It is further alleged that accused persons 5 to 7 are helping accused Nos. 1 to 4. It is also stated that the accused persons fraudulently and dishonestly want to obtain a decree. It is further stated that Hira did not enter any oral settlement with any of the accused persons. I am really surprised that the Magistrate passed an order summoning the accused persons. The complaint itself does not disclose any offence. Filing of any objection in mutation proceedings or filing any application for mutation would not come under the definition of cheating and mischief at all. Every one has a right to seek redress from a court of law. There is nothing to indicate in the complaint that the complainant parted with any property and the accused persons obtained any property or valuable security etc. There is also nothing in the complaint to suggest that the accused persons have caused actual monetary loss to the complainant. The two acts attributed to them are that they filed objection in mutation proceedings and they later filed application for mutation, basing the same on the strength of a verbal settlement with the vendor, not the complainant. I find that there cannot be a greater abuse of the process of law. I also find that the Magistrate who passed the order summoning the applicant has no conception regarding the ingredients of the offence under Sections 420 and 427, I. P C. His order touches the limits of perversity. In the result, this application is allowed. The criminal proceedings in the case of Rudra Prasad v. Jagdish and another in pursuance of the complaint dated 5. 10. 1979, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Basti, as well as the complaint of Rudra Prasad dated 5. 10. 79 are both quashed. .