RAGHO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to quash a prosecution instituted against the three petitioners by one Kuisum Debi. Kuisum Debi and her husband Ram Chandra Prasad have, for some years, been in occupation of a small hut standing at one corner of a parcel of land, one katha or so in area, which belongs to the employer of the petitioner Ragho Prasad. Apparently, on so much of the land as is not occupied by the hut wood had been stacked by persons who have taken out licences from the Muzaffarpur Municipality. On or about the 3rd of October, 1950, one of these licensees Lakhan Mahto, brought some wood to the land, and KuLsum Debi protested at this wood being put down in a certain part of it. According to her, the petitioners intervened and assaulted her. An Honorary Magistrate, Mr. Syed Ahmad Nawab, held a local investigation under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and examined some seven or eight withesses, recording in each case a summary of what they said to him. The conclusion to which he came was that the story was in large part untrue and that there was no good reason to prosecute the petitioners.

(2.) NEVERTHELESS, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has summoned them. The reason which the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate gives is a some what extraordinary one, namely, that there is a dispute as between Kuisum Debi and her husband on the one hand and the employer of the petitioner Ragho Prasad on the other over this land, and that it is desirable that this dispute should be settled. That may, indeed, be very desirable. But it can only be settled in the civil Court, and not in the criminal Court. Apparently, while Ragho Prasad or his employer is prepared to permit Kuisum Debi and her husband to remain in occupation of the hut, or at all events, not to disturb them except by due process of law, he con tends that Kuisum Debi and her husband have no right to the rest of the land, and that he is en titled to let it out to such persons as Lakhan Mahton for the purpose of stacking wood on it. Mr Baldeva Sahay for the petitioners, in inviting me to take the somewhat unusual course of quashing the prosecution, relied on 'RAMPABITAR SINGH v. KASIM ALT KHAN', 67 Ind Gas 499 (Pat) and 'ABDULLAH MANDAL v. EMPEROR', 40 Cal 854. These decisions are in point. No useful purpose would, in my opinion, be served by allowing this prosecution to continue and it will accordingly be quashed.