Allowed

Mohd.Nausad Khan v. State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC18 May 2009CR. MISC./21062/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an application to quash criminal proceedings and revision orders. The court held that the dispute over land sale without a proper vendor accusation is essentially a civil dispute lacking bona fides, preventing criminal prosecution. Consequently, the orders of cognizance and the subsequent revision rejection were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10.8.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge and the order taking cognizance dated 24.06.2005 are quashed.

Mohd.Nausad Khan Vs State of Bihar and Anr. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Cr.Misc. No.21062 of 2007

¶3

MOHD.NAUSAD KHAN, son of Ismile Khan, resident of villageMohalla- Chhawani Betiah, P. S.- Motihari Town, Distt. – East Champaran.

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

STATE OF BIHAR

¶7

Arzoo Khanam w/o Moin Khan, d/o Sheikh Mohmmad Sharif, Vill of res- Sang Ram Pur, District- East Champaran.

¶8

….Opposite parties

¶9

18.05.2009.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶11

counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State.

¶12

In a complaint case No. 530 C relating to T. R. No.

¶13

1834 of 2006 cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 120 B of the IPC. The order was challenged in a criminal revision. Vide order dated 10.8.2006 the application has been rejected. Both the orders are under challenge now in the present application.

¶14

The basic allegation in the complaint is that one Hadish Khan is alleged to have sold the piece and parcel of land beyond his share to the present petitioner by way of a sale deed executed on 1.3.2004. According to opposite party, said Hadish Khan had land to the extent of 3 kathas and 6 dhurs only. But

¶15

the sold land includes the share of opposite party no. 2 as well and the total area alleged to have been sold is five kathas. Based on said complaint order of cognizance came to be passed which has been affirmed in revision.

¶16

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a frivolous complaint has been filed against the petitioner

¶17

¶18

without making said Hadish Khan as an accused who is alleged to have sold land to this present petitioner. It is further alleged that it is basically a civil dispute and there is nothing to indicate that opposite party has taken any steps for defending her interest of getting her share in the property. Even otherwise it is not explained in the complaint as to how she claims share or Hadish Khan had share in the property which has been sold.

¶19

Learned counsel for opposite party submits that if Hadish Khan had sold land which does not belong to him or beyond the share he had, the case of Section 420 read with section 120 B IPC is made out.

¶20

Having heard rival contentions and submissions and perusing the record, the court is of the considered opinion that all is not well and the complaint lacks due bona fide, especially, when no steps have been taken to protect her interest in getting the so-called sale deed declared void. It is an out and out civil dispute for which the prosecution of the petitioner cannot be allowed to stand. This application is allowed. Order dated 10.8.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-4, Motihari in Cr. Revision No. 136/68 of 2006/2006 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 24.06.2005 is quashed.

¶21

Quashing of the criminal proceeding will not come in the way of opposite party no. 2 to take appropriate remedial measures before an appropriate civil court.

¶22

kanchan

¶23

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)

Mohd.Nausad Khan v. State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Nausad Khan v. State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarfuddin Ansari @ Sarfuddin Mian and Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Md.Ishaque Vs the State of Bihar

Amod Yadav Vs State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar

Ekramul Haque @ Md.Ekramul Haque and Anr. Vs State of Bihar

Rakesh Roshan @ Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar