BENI MADHAV PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 22.5.2000 passed by Sub. Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Complaint Case No. 469C of 2000. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and directed for summoning the petitioners.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2, who was own brother of petitioner No. 1, filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 469C of 2000 disclosing therein that in respect of ancestral properties there were family partition and after partition all the brothers including the petitioners and the complainant and one brother namely, Madan Mohan Pandey were enjoying their own share. However, the petitioner No. 1 with a view to commit fraud transferred the land lying in the share of the complainant to his wife (petitioner No. 2), who has been arrayed as accused No. 2 by executing the deed of gift and petitioner No. 3 had turned up as a witness. On the aforesaid allegation, the complaint petition was filed and after filing of the complaint petition, the learned Magistrate conducted an enquiry. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 22.5.2000, the Sub. Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of cognizance initially the petitioners filed a revision vide Cr. Revision No. 101 of 2000 in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Bettiah. However, the said revision was got withdrawn by filing a petition indicating therein that the petitioners wanted to file a petition before this Court and, accordingly, revision petition was permitted to be withdrawn. It was submitted that thereafter the petitioners filed the present petition. On 28.9.2001 this Court while issuing notice to opposite party No. 2 directed that in the meantime, further proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 469C of 2000, pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Bettiah shall remain stayed. Thereafter, on 18.2.2002 despite service of notice on opposite party No. 2, the opposite party No. 2 did not appear and this Court admitted the case for hearing and while admitting the case it was directed that pending hearing of this application, the interim order passed on 28.9.2001, shall remain operative and order of stay is still continuing. However, opposite party No. 2 has not preferred to appear in the present case.