PATNA, India, Oct. 14 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 15:

Heard Mr. Gyanand Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Raju Giri, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner has sought quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Katihar (N) Police Station Case No. 390 of 2023 (G.R. No.- 3067 of 2023), as well as, the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar by which, cognizance has been taken under Sections 323, 341, 420, 465, 467, 468, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

3. As per the allegation made in the Complaint Case No. 618 of 2023, which has been converted into FIR, the petitioner along with other accused persons had entered into the house of the opposite party no. 2 and had put the opposite party no. 2 under confinement to deliver the possession of the land appertaining to Khata No. 103, Old Plot No. 418 measuring total area 6 Katha situated at Ward No. 14, Mauza- Durgapur or to make payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-, for which, the opposite party no. 2 has created forged gift deed.

4. Both the parties submit that the matter relates to the house appertaining to Khata No. 103, Old Plot No. 418 measuring total area 6 Katha situated at Ward No. 14, MauzaDurgapur and they are claiming their right title over the said piece of land.

5. The petitioner claims his right title over the aforesaid property on the basis of gift deed dated 06.12.1962 executed by one Rukmani Devi, wife of Late Raksha Bhagat in favour of Prathmik Shikshak Sangh and the petitioner claims to be the Secretary of the said Sangh at present.

6. The informant claims that the land in question was put on auction sale and he being the highest bidder, the same was settled in his name.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that while exercising the power under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the duty cast on the learned Magistrate cannot be marginalized in view of the fact that before exercising power under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., on the basis of information received by way of certain application, which has not been affidavited.

8. In this regard, I find that the petitioner and complainant are claiming right title over the property and once the learned Magistrate has come into knowledge of the fact that the matter relates to civil dispute, the complaint in such circumstances mandatorily doesn't required to be looked into or referred for further investigation.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiMzNjIzMSMyMDI0IzEjTg==-CVvq3VCT6gM=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.