SURESH CHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 601 of 2011 including the order dated 4.8.2012, whereby and whereunder learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

(2.) Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is the case of the complainant that the complainant does have his house at Mahuatand over piece of a land which is contiguous to a land bearing Plot No. 1351 Khata No. 55 which land had been purchased by his father in the year 1991 and 1994 from Mostt. Dharmi and Bhatu Yadav and had been coming in possession over that land. In course of time, when it was found by him that in the sale deed, plot number has wrongly been mentioned as 1353, the complainant made a request to the vendors to correct the plot number, but they did not pay heed to it.

(3.) Further case is that the accused Yamuna Sao and his wife Savitri Devi got a sale deed executed by these two petitioners, but in the sale deed boundary of the vended plot has not been mentioned clearly and, therefore, those two persons alongwith other family members who have also been made accused tried to take possession of the land which belongs to him. The matter was reported to the Police. Upon which a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated. After the force of the order got lapsed, the accused persons [not these petitioners] after forming unlawful assembly came over the plot and started digging it. The matter was reported to the Police. In spite of that the accused persons hurled abuses and held out threat of dire consequence.