MOHINDER LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the complainant, opposite party no. 2.

(2.) FROM the facts as stated in this application seeking the relief of quashing of an order taking cognizance for offence under Sections 379, 447, 451 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code it would transpire that prosecution of the petitioner in a complaint case at the instance of opposite party no. 2 had emanated only when the petitioner in capacity of Defence Estate Officer, Danapur belonging to Indian Estates Service had taken certain action as follow up measure for resumption of Government property.

(3.) IT appears that thereafter one month notice was given on 30.4.1987 by publishing the same in daily newspaper &aposIndian Nation&apos and property was resumed in accordance with law which however was again challenged this time by opposite party no. 2 in CWJC No. 4403 of 1987 but the said writ application was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.10.1987.