PITHARAM SAMODA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN spite of service of notice, nobody appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 in the Cr. Misc. Petition.

(2.) IN interlocutory application, the petitioners have sought to bring on record the subsequent development in the civil suit between the parties, which was in respect of the same land dispute out of which the criminal case arose.

(3.) MR .Sen, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that on bare reading of the F.I.R., it would be evident that O.P. no.2 had challenged the right, title and possession over the disputed property, which was subject matter of the said Title Suit no. 43/92. The entire allegations made in the F.I.R. did not constitute any offence as the same were based on the said civil dispute, which was subject matter of Title Suit no. 43/92. The said title suit having been now disposed of in terms of settlement, the O.P. no.2 is not even having a civil cause as on today. The order taking cognizance is, thus, unsustainable and the entire criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court.