LAWS(PAT)-2000-2-106

LAKHI KANTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On February 17, 2000
Lakhi Kanta Singh Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8889 and 10510 of 1998 (R) have been heard together as they arise out of complaint Case No. 33/98 and 34/98 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila took cognizance and both the applications have been filed for quashing the orders taking cognizance dated 8.9.1998 and 8.10.1998 respectively for the offence under Sections 147/148/323/447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8889 and 10510 of 1998 (R) are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to these applications that two complaint cases were filed against all the petitioners alleging therein that the accused -persons including the petitioners after forming unlawful assembly with weapons came to the field and destroyed paddy seeding Which caused wrongful loss to the opposite party/complainant to the tune of Rs. 3,000/ - approximately. It is further alleged that the accused -persons/petitioners also assaulted by first and slaps. The witnesses/complainant were examined during inquiry and thereafter, the learned Court below took cognizance by the impugned orders aforesaid.

(3.) IT is submitted that the whole allegations have been conducted in order to harass the petitioners as a Title Suit has already been filed much prior to the occurrence which is still pending in the Court below in respect of the said land. It is also submitted that the said lands are in continuing possession of the petitioners and the opposite party No. 2 has got no right, title and interest over the same. Moreover, it relates to the civil dispute. It is further argued that the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. is not made out as there is nothing against the petitioners as to who assaulted by fist and slaps and the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence. It is also argued that the learned Magistrate taking cognizance has not applied his judicial mind in passing the impugned orders as there is nothing specific against the petitioners for committing the offence.