VINOD MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Amarendra Nath Verma, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri Anil Chandra, the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. This application at the instance of one of the accused of Patna Harijan P.S. Case No. 24 of 1999, G.R. No. 1484 of 1999 is for the quashing of the order dated 3.7.2006 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 352, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 3(1) (iv), (v) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as also for award of an exemplary cost and compensation.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner had purchased one Katha 17 Dhurs of land appertaining to Khesra No. 1799 in Mauza Dharharwa in the District of Muzaffarpur from C.P. No. 2s mother and his other family numbers through several sale deeds executed in between 1970 and 1995 and on getting possession thereof and after constructing a house thereupon started living with his family members. It also appears that one of the vendees was O.P. No. 2 who had executed one of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner on 7.5.1988, a copy whereof is Annexure -1 to the application. It further appears that the said lands was mutated in favour of the petitioner. It further appears that one of the family members and O.P. No. 2, Most. Janki Devi, filed Partition Suit No. 4 of 1996 before the learned Munsif (East), Muzaffarpur staking claim in the family properties and therein she impleaded the two accused of G.R. Case No. 1484 of 1999 including the petitioner as defendant Nos. 5 and 6 and the said Suit was decreed on compromise between the parties and O.P. No. 2 was one of the signatories to the Compromise Petition, the judgment and decree and compromise petition have been appended herein as Annexure -3 series. However, notwithstanding the said compromise, in March, 1999 when the petitioner was constructing roof of his house on the aforesaid land purchased from O.P. No. 2's family members, O.P. No. 2, started creating disturbances and started demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/ - and which the petitioner came to know later on was at the instance of one Rajdeo Paswan, himself a purchaser of land from the family of O.P. No. 2, who had incited O.P. No. 2 to disturb the petitioner in order to get passage of ingress and egress through the petitioner's land. The petitioner appears to have approached the local police on the basis whereof proceedings under Sections 107 and 144 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the O.P. No. 2 and his family members which eventually died a natural death on efflux of the statutory period.

(3.) IT was sought to be submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his prosecution is bad in law and fact and cannot be relied upon. It was further submitted that when the matter had already been compromised by a court of competent jurisdiction wherein O.P. No. 2 was a signatory, the informant -O.P. No. 2 could not have challenged the petitioner's right, title and possession even in a Civil Court. On these premise, it was sought to be submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner was an abuse of the process of court and, therefore, was required to be quashed.