AMRITA PRIYAM DAUGHTER OF DEVETA CHARAN PRASAD AT PRESENT WIFE OF ATUL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF MUNDRIKA PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 16.1.1999/17.2.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 1586 (C) of 1998.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the Opp. Party No. 2 , who was the Secretary of Laxmi Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") filed a complaint, vide Complaint Case No. 1586(C) of 1998, disclosing therein that the petitioner was one of the members of the Society and a piece of land was allotted by the Society to the petitioner with a condition that without permission of the Society , she cannot transfer the said land to any one. It was alleged that the petitioner without obtaining any permission from the Society has transferred the land to one another person. It has also been stated in paragraph 5 of the complaint petition that if a member transfers a piece of land of the Society to any other person without permission of the Society, the Society will be at liberty to take step for cancellation of the said transfer. On the aforesaid allegation, the present complaint was filed and after filing of the complaint petition, the complaint was examined on S.A. and some witnesses were examined as enquiry witnesses and thereafter by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence.

(3.) Sri Amish Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while placing the contents of Complaint Petition submits that on perusal of the complaint petition, no offence is made out. It was submitted that had there been any illegality or irregularity, the Society was having remedy in civil side. For such allegation criminal prosecution was no required to be initiated.