BARDHAN KUMAR SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the complainant of C.R. No. 528 of 2018 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. It is alleged by the complainant that on 9/5/2018, the accused persons, namely, Ganga Purbey, Suman Purbey, Ram Nath Purabey, Rimjhim Devi and Deo Narayan Sahu committed trespass into the shop of the complainant and directed him to give vacant position of the said shop stating interalia that they purchased the land over which the said shop was situated by a registered deed of conveyors. The complainant purchased the land prior to the accused persons and he constructed a shop there on and carries on a business of gold and silver ornaments in the said shop. It is also alleged by the petitioner/complainant that on 10/5/2018, the above named accused persons trespassed into his shop, committed mischief by causing damage to the articles and furniture of the said shop. They also broke down a railing constructed by the mason on the first floor of the said shop. They pulled the complainant, put a gamcha around his neck and pulled him down. The complainant fell down and sustained injury on his knees. One of the accused persons took away a gold chain from his neck. They also took away cash money from his pocket. In the initial statement, the complainant stated that all the accused persons committed the offence as stated above. Other witnesses specifically stated that O.P. No. 2, Deo Narayan Sahu was along with other accused persons and he also took specific part in committing mischief and assault to the complainant.

(2.) The learned Magistrate on consideration of the evidence on record found that the complainant has been able to make out a case against all the accused persons and took cognizance of offence under Ss. 341/ 323/ 327/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 386/ 427/ 504/ 120B/ 452 and 380 of the I.P.C. The accused Deo Narayan Sahu moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Cr. Rev. No. 426 of 2018 challenging the order of taking cognizance. The learned Sessions Judge firstly held on the basis of the submissions made by the learned Advocate on behalf of the accused/petitioner that real dispute between the parties relates to ownership of the subject land on which the shop room in question was constructed. Therefore, the nature of dispute is essentially civil in nature. It is also held by the learned Sessions Judge that the complainant made an omnibus allegation against the petitioner and other witnesses did not specifically state the name of O.P. No. 2 Deo Narayan Sahu in committing the offence. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order dtd. 30/7/2018 regarding taking of cognizance in respect of the O.P. No. 2, namely, Deo Narayan Sahu and the revisional application was allowed.

(3.) Against the said order, the complainant has approached this Court assailing the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga.