SYED EZAZ HUSSAIN ZAIDI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

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 the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 811 of 1998, pending in the court of Sri V.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur as well as for quashing of the order dated 3.5.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Section 406 and 407 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrceities) Act 1989.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the Opp. Party no. 2, who claims to be a Harijan, filed a complaint case vide Complaint Case No. 811 of 1998 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur alleging therein that the petitioner had committed a criminal breach of trust as well as offence under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that the complainant was the owner of about 1800 Sq. ft of land appertaining to Khata No. 31, Khesra No. 507, situated at Gurudwara Road, Police Station-Kotwali, Bhagalpur. On persuasion of the petitioner, an agreement was entered into between the parties and the complainant was persuaded that if she executes the agreement, the accused will develop a building over the land in question and on the ground floor of the proposed premises, a room of 400 Sq. ft. would be given to the complainant. It was also agreed that out of proceeds from the constructed portion, 30 % share will be given to the complainant. As per the agreement, the building was to be constructed within a specified time. However, it was alleged by the complainant that by alluring the complainant, the agreement was got signed and thereafter her dilapidated house was dismantled, which is standing on the land in question and thereafter, despite the fact, the building was constructed the complainant was not given her share and, as such, it was alleged by the complainant that accused persons had committed offences as alleged above.

(3.) After filing, of the complainant, the complainant was examined on S.A. and two witnesses were examined in support of the complainant. During the enquiry, some documents were also produced by the complainant. After examining the evidence as well as the materials available on record, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order has taken cognizance of offences as mentioned above.