LAWS(PAT)-1999-5-103

SITA RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On May 19, 1999
SITA RAM SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) This revision application is directed against the order, dated 4.9.1993 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, East Champaran in Criminal Revision No. 2/50 of 1993, whereby and who, render the order taking cognizance under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against members of the opposite parties has been set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the averment made in the complaint petition and also on the basis of the inquiry held under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the learned revisional Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the same. Learned counsel further submitted that Smt. Rup Sagar Devi, opposite party No. 2 got four sale-deeds executed in favour of the opposite party Nos. 5 to 11 after impersonating herself as wife of Dasain Singh instead of showing her husband as Ramudar Singh. Learned counsel further submitted that this is an admitted fact that Smt. Rup Sagar Devi is the wife of Ramudar Singh and she is liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the land in question appertaining to khesra No. 2061 comprising area of 1 bigha, 14 kathas 15 dhurs belonged to him as he had got the same by virtue of bandobasti. When I put a question as to what was the relationship of the petitioner and Rup Sagar Devi, learned counsel said that the petitioner is the cousin of Ramudar Singh, husband of Rup Sagar Devi. From the revision petition it appears that the land in question was being claimed by the petitioner as well as by Ramudar Singh, the husband of Rup Sagar Devi and a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated against the parties. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has produced before me the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being case No. 182 (M) of 1978 showing that the proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC was in between Ramudar Singh and Shambhu Narayan Singh and the petitioner was nowhere in the picture and at the stage, he was made party. This fact is not denied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petition. Besides this, it appears from the order, dated 31.3.1982 passed by the learned Magistrate in the proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC that the land in question was also attached in the proceeding under Section 146, Cr PC and the second party was restrained from going over the land and the learned Magistrate directed the parties to get the matter finally adjudicated by the competent Civil Court. From the materials on record, it thus, appears that the petitioner cannot be said to be exclusive owner of the land in question and the same was also being claimed by the husband of Smt. Rup Sagar Devi.