RAM AYODHYA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused petitioners have Patna High Court CR. REV. No.201 of 2002 dt.15-09-2011 preferred this revision application against the order dated 24.1.2002 passed by the learned XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Cr. Revision No. 82 of 2000 by which the order dated 7.12.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 1332 of 1996, Enquiry No. 100 of 1999 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law and the revision petition has been allowed.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that Birendra Singh took a house of accused Lakshman Singh on rent, advance money was also given. In one room of the house the complainant has established a motor part shop and in another room there was a shop of chemical fertilizer and in the forth room there was repairing shop of thrasher. In the year 1995, the accused- petitioners asked and threatened the complainant to vacate a room which was refused. Birendra Prasad, the brother of the complainant filed Title Suit No. 106 of 1995 in the Court of Munsif, 3rd. On 18.8.1995 at about 11 a.m. the accused -petitioners armed with various weapons confined the complainant and his brother and broke open the lock of the three rooms, looted some articles and asked the complainant and his brother to take away the remaining articles. The complainant informed the police about the occurrence.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that for the same cause of action the complainant had filed Baniyapur P. S. Case No. 129 of 1995. After enquiry final form was submitted in favour of the accused petitioners holding the case to be of civil nature. Final form was accepted but the complainant filed protest-cum-complaint petition which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1332 of 1996. After enquiry the case has been dismissed. It is further submitted that Birendra Prasad, the own brother of the complainant filed Title Suit No. 106 of 1995 in the Court of Sub Judge praying inter alia to restrain the accused- petitioners from evicting the plaintiff from the suit premises and damaging the property. After considering the material on record including the evidence of two enquiry witnesses, learned Magistrate dismissed the protest-cum-complaint petition on 21.5.1997 on the ground that no prima facie case is made out against the accused-petitioners. The suit has also been dismissed on contest vide order dated 31st March 2001. Even after the remand order and further enquiry, learned Judicial Magistrate did not find any material to proceed with the case, as such the complaint petition was dismissed by order dated 7.12.1999.