SULTAN MALLICK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Smt. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Ajay Kumar No.-1 on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

(2.) The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and seeks quashing of the order dated 30.01.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 415 of 2004 corresponding to Tr. No. 767 of 2005 by Sri Ved Prakash, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jehanabad, summoning the petitioner finding a prima facie case to be made out under Sections 144, 379, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against him. The case of the complainant (opposite party No. 2) in brief is that on 5.11.1999 at about 8.30 a.m., she was reading the Holy Quran Sharif in her house. She heard sound of firing and came at her door. She saw about 100 miscreants armed with firearms surrounding her house and about 15 to 16 miscreants were present on the land adjacent to her house bearing khata no. 457 and plot no. 3039. The accused Deoki Yadav and 14 others were found harvesting standing paddy crops from the said field. The petitioner ordered to harvest the paddy crops soon, otherwise the police may reach. The complainant alleges that she was also abused by the petitioner and one Md. Zubair. It has further been alleged that co- accused Ladle and Arshad opened fire and threatened the complainant. The complainant approached the local choukidar and narrated him about the incident. The choukidar, thereafter, went to the local police station. The complainant came back to her house and in way the petitioner and Md. Zubair came to her and inquired about her husband. The complainant told them that her husband has gone to Jehanabad. The complainant alleges that the accused persons had nothing to do with the land in question and the paddy crops standing thereon. She sustained a loss of Rs. 3,000/- as a result of damage caused to the standing paddy crops and the accused persons besides damaging the crops took away paddy crops worth Rs. 1200/-. The occurrence is alleged to have been witnessed by Lorik Manjhi, Mungeshwar Mochi, Koshmi Devi, Daulati Devi and others.

(3.) It is submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid allegation, initially, Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 328 dated 6.11.1999 was registered under Sections 144, 379, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and 15 others and investigation was taken up. The said F.I.R. was registered pursuant to a written report given by the complainant (opposite party no. 2) with respect to an occurrence, which is said to have taken place on 5.11.1999 at 8.30 a.m. The police after investigation of the aforesaid case submitted its report dated 12.4.2000 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad. In the report, it has been mentioned that in course of investigation statement of several witnesses were recorded, who disclosed that the land in question was sold by the brother-in-law (Dewar) of the informant in the name of Razia Sultan, Jarina Khatoon and Ishrat Khatoon. Razia Khatoon is wife of the petitioner. The land in question was in possession of the accused persons since the date of purchase. They had cultivated the land and harvested the crops, thus, the police concluded in the report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C. that as a matter of fact the case was essentially a dispute of civil nature. The informant had already filed a protest petition in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad during pendency of the investigation. After submission of the police report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad by his order dated 23.7.2004 accepted the final report submitted by the police in Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 328 of 1999 and ordered the protest petition filed in the said case to be registered as a complaint. Accordingly, Complaint Case No. 415 of 2003 was registered. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and in course of inquiry, Lorik Manjhi, Md. Tarique Fatah and Mungeshwar Mochi deposed as Enquiry Witnesses. Upon conclusion of inquiry, the learned Magistrate finding a prima facie case to be made out against the petitioner and others took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused persons to face trial by order dated 30.01.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an oral agreement was arrived at between the petitioner and one Rashid Fatah, son of Dr. M.A. Fatah and brother of Tarique Fatah (the husband of the complainant) with respect to khata no. 457, plot no. 3039 having an area of 35 decimal and the same was got registered in the name of wife of the petitioner namely Jarina Khatoon and others on 4.1.2009 vide deed no. 45/99 as contained in Annexure-2 to the petition after paying considerable money.