The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking quashing of cognizance orders and proceedings in two complaint cases related to property ownership and theft, holding the complaints were completely frivolous.
Proceedings in Complaint case No.3014C of 2010 and Complaint case No.2358C of 2010 were set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.41795 of 2011
Arising Out of PS.Case No.3014 Year- 2010 Thana -null DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH)
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Udai Chand Pd., APP
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 11-08-2015
No one appears on behalf of the Petitioners.
The Petitioners seek quashing of the order of cognizance dated 21.9.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bettiah in Complaint case No.3014C of 2010 (Trial No.3071 of 2011).
The case of the Complainant is that she was in possession of the premises and on the date of occurrence when she returned after casting her vote, she found her room unlocked and house hold articles stolen. She found out that the accused persons had done such an act. So she went to demand an explanation. However she along with her husband were abused and assaulted but thankfully
saved at the intervention of the neighbours.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41795 of 2011 dt.11-08-2015
2/2
From the petition filed herein, I find that there was a Partition Suit pending between the parties since both of them claimed title over the premises. Earlier to the present Complaint, the Petitioner No.4 had filed Complaint case No.2358C of 2010 in which cognizance was taken under Section 323 I.P.C. against the Complainant and her husband. It is subsequently that the present Complaint was filed.
Having considered the background of dispute, I would be inclined to hold that the two Complaints are completely frivolous and deserves to be set aside. Hence, the application is allowed and the proceedings of Complaint case No.3014C of 2010 including the order of cognizance dated 21.9.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bettiah in Complaint case No.3014C of 2010 (Trial No.3071 of 2011) as also proceeding of Complaint case No.2358C of 2010 pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah are hereby set aside.
Application stands allowed with the aforesaid
observations.
(Anjana Prakash, J)
Narendra/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings initiated in two separate complaint cases arising from the same property dispute deserve to be quashed as frivolous.
Billu Kumari and others
The State Of Bihar
Lalita Devi
Anjana Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
