VIJAYENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.M. Rahman, learned APP for the State.

(2.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) with a prayer to quash the order dtd. 6/5/2016 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Danapur, Patna has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sec. (s) 323, 504 and 379 of the IPC against the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 192(C) of 2016.

(3.) The main ground taken by the petitioners' counsel to assail the order impugned is a lease dispute running between the petitioners and the opposite parties as well as other civil litigation on account of the said lease dispute. Learned counsel submits that it is an admitted fact that the original opposite party, who is now no more, leased the land in question in favour of the petitioners and there was no dispute in between them for several years after execution of the lease deed and the petitioners had been paying the rent as per terms and conditions of the lease regularly but in the year 2016, when the daughter of the original opposite party got dealership of a petrol pump then the complainant (original opposite party No.2) raised issues regarding the area of the leased land as well as period of lease which were not proper in accordance with the terms of lease deed and the same was opposed by the petitioners and thereafter a dispute arose in between them and then the O.P. No.2 filed Title Suit No. 41 of 2016 on 8/3/2016 against the petitioners which is still running and only thereafter the complaint, in which the order impugned has been passed, was filed against the petitioners with an ulterior motive with false and unbelievable allegations. It is further submitted that as per the allegations, the petitioners and other accused persons entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted him by inflicting repeated blows of iron rod but, admittedly, neither medical treatment was taken from a Government hospital nor FIR was lodged by the complainant, rather he chose to file criminal complaint directly, which shows malafide intention on the part of the complainant to create undue pressure upon the petitioners to settle the lease dispute.