GUNANAND SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard

(2.) Present application has been filed for quashing the prosecution under Section 447 of the I.P.C. It appears that the C.J.M. by order dated 24.8.95 took cognizance under Section 447 of the I.P.C. in Araria P.S. Case No. 85/93. Petitioner challenged the same before the Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No. 442/94 and the same revision application has been dismissed by order dated 20th February, 1997 by the Vth Additional Session Judge, Purnea. Opposite Party No. 2 Ram Ratan Bhagat lodged a First Information Report according to which the land in question belonged to him. He had given the same over which there were some temporary construction on rent to the petitioner. The construction made over the land was damaged during the communal disturbances. Thereafter, the accused again constructed a temporary hut and occupied the same. The police on the basis of the said statement, registered a case under Section 447 of the ARC. However, after investigation, police submitted final report saying that the dispute between the patties is of civil nature. Thereafter, the C.J.M. differing with the Police report, took cognizance against the petitioner under Section 447 of the I.P.C.

(3.) The stand of the petitioner is that he has purchased the land from one of the co-sharers of the accused, it further appears that cases are pending between the parties with regard to the land and temporary construction over tile same. Earned Counsel for the petitioner submitted two points. Firstly, he submitted that dispute between the parties is of civil nature and the criminal court is not a proper forum for settling the dispute between the parties, it was also submitted that in this case occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 5.1.1993 and cognizance was taken on 24 8.94. As such the cognizance is barred by limitation In view of the provisions contained in Section 468 of the Cr.PC. In any view, both the submissions are well founded. From the narration of the facts, it is clear that a title eviction suit is going on between the parties with regard to the land in question. It further appears that accused persons are claiming the disputed land by virtue of purchase from co-sharer of the informant. In that view of the matter, this cannot be said to be a case of mischief. This apart, maximum sentence under Section 447 of the I.P.C. is three months for which the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance is one year whereas the cognizance has been taken after one year and as such, I prosecution is also barred by limitation.