Allowed

Dharamvir Kumar Ranjan v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC12 Jul 2017CR. MISC./22485/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order of cognizance passed by the Magistrate. The court held that the dispute over bamboo ownership was civil in nature and no triable offence under Sections 323 and 504 IPC was made out from the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 01.02.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate and connected proceedings are quashed.

Dharamvir Kumar Ranjan Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22485 of 2014

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -961 Year- 2013 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- KISANGANJ

¶4

===========================================================

¶5

Dharamvir Kumar Ranjan son of Dashrath Prasad, Revenue Karmchari, Resident of Mirzapur Circle, P.S. Pothia, District - Kishanganj

¶6

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar

¶9

Enamul Haque son of Late Nazrule Islam Resident of village - Bagrani, Mirzapur, P.S. Pothia, District - Kishanganj

¶10

.... .... Opposite Party/s

¶11

===========================================================

¶12

Appearance :

¶13

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party No.1: Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.

¶14

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Date: 12-07-2017

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2, namely, Rajesh Ranjan.

¶17

2 . The opposite party no.2 appears to have filed a Complaint bearing Complaint Case No.883C of 2012 against the petitioner, inter alia, stating therein that the petitioner, in official capacity, had come to the alleged place of occurrence with labourers on 22.03.2011 and removed 65 pieces of bamboos, amounting to a sum of Rs.6500/-. It was stated by the accused petitioner that the said bamboos do not belong to him, rather it belongs to the Government of Bihar and the same was lying on the road belonging to the Government of Bihar. It is further alleged that when the complainant had gone to the residence of the accused petitioner, the petitioner is said to have assaulted and started abusing him.

¶18

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22485 of 2014 dt.12-07-2017

¶19

2/4

¶20

3 . It appears that the learned trial court had sent the complaint petition to the police and in pursuance thereof, Pothia P.S. Case No. 51 of 2013 was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

4 . The police appears to have submitted final form on 18.04.2013 finding the case to be untrue against the petitioner herein. However, upon a protest petition filed by the complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Kishanganj by an order dated 01.02.2014 has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner herein, in a mechanical manner without any application of mind.

¶22

5 . The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. inter alia, praying therein for quashing the order dated 01.02.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Kishanganj in connection with Complaint Case No. C-961 of 2013.

¶23

6 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has acted in official capacity and seized the bamboos, not from the premises of the complainant, but from the area falling within the road belonging to the Government of Bihar. It is stated that no criminality is involved in the instant case and it is purely a dispute of civil nature pertaining to the fact as to whether the bamboos fall within the private land of the petitioner or within the area of the

¶24

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22485 of 2014 dt.12-07-2017

¶25

3/4

¶26

Government of Bihar.

¶27

7 . The opposite party No.2 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 01.02.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Kishanganj. It is further submitted that the petitioner has illegally removed the bamboos belonging to the opposite party No.2 and has, therefore, committed offence. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the petitioner had no authority under law to seize the bamboos.

¶28

8 . Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no criminal offence is made out, upon a bare perusal of the complaint petition as against the petitioner. If it is the case of the opposite party no.2 that the petitioner does not have any authority to seize the bamboos, the remedy lies before the appropriate authority or the civil court of competent jurisdiction and not before the criminal court by way of the connected complaint petition.

¶29

9 . A bare perusal of the complaint also does not make out triable offence under Section 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, according to the Opposite Party no.2 also, the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the authority of the Government of Bihar.

¶30

10 . In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it fit and proper to quash the order dated 01.02.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Kishanganj as well as the

¶31

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22485 of 2014 dt.12-07-2017

¶32

4/4

¶33

connected proceedings.

¶34

11 . Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed, the order dated 01.02.2014 passed by Sri S.K. Manjhi, J.M. Ist Class, Kishanganj in Complaint Case No. C-961 of 2013 is hereby quashed and consequently, the entire proceedings emanating therefrom also stands quashed.

¶35

12 . The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that it may be clarified that the quashing of the said complaint will have no bearing on the question of the title of the opposite party no.2 on the land in question. I find the request of the O.P. No.2 to be irrelevant since the present proceedings are in no way connected with

¶36

the question of title of the O.P. No.2.

¶37

13 . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

¶39

BTiwary/-

¶40

NAFR	NAFR
CAVDATE	N/A
Uploading Date	18-07-2017
Transmission Date	18-07-2017

Dharamvir Kumar Ranjan v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharamvir Kumar Ranjan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar @ Dablo @ Bablu Vs The State Of Bihar

Sundari Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Lalita Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Chandra Shekhar Jha and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Pramila Devi and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Md. Taukir Khan @ Man Khan @ Taukir Khan Vs The State Of Bihar