MADHUSUDAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.no.3.

(2.) This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dtd. 13/9/2011 passed in C-II Official Complaint Case No.109 of 2000 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby he has been pleased to reject the petition dtd. 28/7/2011 filed under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on 30/11/1978 the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 and 3 entered into an agreement for sale of 8 katha of land of 17 Katha 3 chhataks comprising of sub-plot 595-I and 595-II of Hinoo, Ranchi-2. He further submits that on 27/1/1981 the O.P.No.2 and 3 filed Title Suit No.125 of 1981 for specific performance of contract in terms of the agreement dtd. 30/11/1978 but no sketch map of the suit land was filed along with the plaint as required under Order VII Rule 3 of the C.P.C. He further submits that learned Additional Sub Judge, Ranchi has been pleased to decree the suit in favour of O.P.No.2 and 3 by judgment dtd. 18/10/1982. On 24/1/1983 the O.P.Nos.2 and 3 who are decree holders in Execution Case No.1/83(A) filed the case for execution of the judgment and decree dtd. 18/10/1982, wherein the delivery of possession was passed. Aggrieved with that, the petitioner-judgment debtor preferred an appeal being F.A.No.27 of 1983(R) before the High Court which was dismissed by order dtd. 4/4/1990. The order dtd. 4/4/1990 passed in F.A. No. 27 of 1993(R) was challenged in L.P.A. No.27 of 1990(R) which was dismissed by the order dtd. 17/10/1990. On 23/11/1995 the petitioner judgment-debtor filed S.L.P. No.5061 of 1991 and after grant of leave the same was registered as Civil Appeal No.315 of 1992 and by order dtd. 23/11/1995 the same was dismissed. A review petition was filed which was rejected on 7/2/1996. He further submits that the petitioner has filed a petition under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. on the aforesaid background on 28/7/2011 for summoning Binita Minj, Bench Clerk to face trial by the accused person which was dismissed by order dtd. 15/11/2009. He submits that the learned trial court has rejected the petition under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C in a routine manner and there is no consideration on the spirit of Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. He submits that during the evidence of witnesses her name has come. On this ground, he submits that the interim order may kindly be quashed and the petition of the petitioner under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C may kindly be allowed.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.3 submits that criteria of Sec. 319 of Cr.P.C has not been satisfied and the learned court has rightly rejected the petition.