MOTILAL DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Six petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 17th June, 1998 passed by the learned 4th Addl.Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in Cr.Revision No.2/39 of 1996/97. By the said order, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has allowed the revision petition filed by Opp.Party no.2 against the order dated 25.07.1995 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul at Motihari. By the said order, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the complaint petition under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was preferred by Opp.Party no.2.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint petition vide Complaint Case No.69(C) of 1995 alleging therein that for the purpose of purchasing a piece of land in Plot No.1364 , appertaining to Khata no.19, situated in Village- Ramgarhwa measuring 6 dhurs, the consideration amount of Rs.15,000/- was fixed and after obtaining full consideration amount , accused Sachidanand Prasad , who is petitioner no.6, subsequently, executed a deed in favour of the complainant and, thereafter he took possession of the land in question. The sale deed was executed on 6.4.1995. However, on 30.4.1995, while the complainant wanted to erect hut over the land in question, the accused Sachidanand Prasad and Motilal Das arrived there and restrained him from making construction. Subsequently, the complainant got the matter verified and on verification, it was found that Sachidanand Prasad had virtually executed another sale deed in favour of wife of petitioner no.1. It was also alleged in the complaint petition that accused persons had forcibly taken eight bamboos from the complainants land and, accordingly, he has suffered a loss of Rs.320/- also. After filing the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and two witnesses were also examined in support of the complaint case. However, by the order dated 25.7.1995, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul at Motihari dismissed the complaint petition under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the dispute was purely civil in nature. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of the complaint petition, the complainant filed a revision vide Cr.Revision No.2/39 of 1996/97. The revisional court by its order dated 17th June, 1998 allowed the revision petition and directed the court below to proceed with the case in accordance with law. The revision petition was filed on 2.1.1996, which is evident from the order dated 17th June, 1998.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of Revisional Court dated 17th June, 1998, the petitioners preferred the present petition before this Court. The petition was admitted on 21.2.2000 and while admitting the case for hearing, this Court had directed that pending disposal of the application further proceeding in Cr.Revision No.2/39 of 1996/97 shall remain stayed. By the said order, this Court had directed for issuance of notice to Opp.Party no.2. The order of stay is still continuing.