RAM BACHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 29.05.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua in complaint case no.105/2002 by which a prima facie case has been found against them for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 379/34, 504 and 420 of the I.P.C. and order has been passed for issuance of summons against them.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.02.2002, the complaint-opposite party no.2 were sitting with the witnesses and after hearing Hulla, he went and saw that the accused petitioner no.4 Mahangu Singh was digging and other accused were armed with Lathi and Bhala were helping him in establishing Khutta (Shumbhi). THE son of the complainant protested. THEreafter, the accused petitioner Ram Bachan Singh abused him and told that he had sold the land to Mahangu Singh. THE complainant asked to get the land measured. THEreafter, at the instance of Ram Bachan Singh, all the accused assaulted the complainant and his son. It has been further alleged that accused Ram Bachan Singh snatched a wrist watch of the son of the complainant and accused Radhe Shyam Singh and Mahangu Singh took out Rs.300/- from the pocket of the complainant. After going the accuse from the place of occurrence, the complainant made complaint before the co-villagers, who told that Ram Bachan Singh, Ram Vilash Singh and Radhe Shyam Singh had sold the land in his favour of plot no.171, but at the time of taking possession, he gave the possession of the land of plot no.173, which is Gairmaizurua land. THEreafter, the complainant went to the accused and asked that they have committed cheating and handed over the land of plot no.173, which does not belong to them and he has sold the land, which was transferred to the complainant. He also asked the accused to get a Bazidawa (deed of relinquishment) in his favour from the accused Mahangu Singh, but, they did not abide by his request and also refused to return the consideration money. After examination of the complainant and his witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found a prima facie case against the accused petitioners. THE learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate that from perusal of the complaint petition itself, it is clear that it is a case of civil nature and in fact, the present case has been filed to harass the petitioners with ulterior motive. THE complainant has himself admitted that he is in wrong possession of the land and he has also accepted that the registered sale deed of the accused petitioner no.4 is for the same land. From perusal of the entire materials on record, no criminal case is made out against the petitioners.