Patna High Court
Chandan Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2025
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1319 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2019 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Purnia
======================================================
Chandan Kumar Singh Son of Late Kamleshwari Prasad Singh @
Kamleshwari Singh Resident of Mohalla - Shivpuri behind Bal Bharti School,
Purnea, P.S.- Maranga, District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Smt. Shila Devi Wife of Niranjan Kumar Singh Resident of Mohalla -
Shivpuri behind Bal Bharti School, Purnea, P.S.- Maranga, District- Purnea
3. Niranjan Kumar Singh Son of Dhirendra Kumar Singh Resident of Mohalla
- Shivpuri behind Bal Bharti School, Purnea, P.S.- Maranga, District- Purnea
4. Biku Kumar Son of Niranjan Kumar Singh Resident of Mohalla - Shivpuri
behind Bal Bharti School, Purnea, P.S.- Maranga, District- Purnea
5. Chhotu Son of Niranjan Kumar Singh Resident of Mohalla - Shivpuri
behind Bal Bharti School, Purnea, P.S.- Maranga, District- Purnea
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kr. Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Varun Krishna Singh, Advocate
For R. Nos. 2-5 : Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Advocate
Mr. Vaibhav Vishal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-04-2025
The present Criminal Revision petition has been
preferred against the impugned order dated 16.09.2019, passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Purnia in C.A No. 288
of 2019, corresponding to C.I.S No. 288 of 2019, whereby
learned Magistrate has dismissed the criminal complaint under
Section 203 Cr.PC, finding no prima facie case against the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1319 of 2019 dt.04-04-2025
accused.
2. As per the prosecution case, as emerging from the
complaint, filed by the petitioner against four accused persons,
who are Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 herein, both the complainant
and the accused side have purchased the land from the same
land owner and their land is adjoining to each other. As per the
case of the complainant, the accused persons have purchased the
land, subject to the condition that he will have 10 feet wide
raasta between the two lands. However, the accused persons
started encroaching the land of the raasta by encroaching upon
it and on protest, altercation took place, in which the
complainant and his family members were assaulted by the
accused persons and even his mobile was thrown on the ground,
resulting into the mobile getting broken up.
3. After inquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C., learned
Magistrate came to the conclusion that, as per the complaint and
averment made during the inquiry, the complainant and the
accused sides have civil dispute in regard to the land and by this
criminal complaint, the complainant is giving criminal colour to
their civil dispute and on this ground, learned Magistrate had
dismissed the complaint.
4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1319 of 2019 dt.04-04-2025
APP for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party
Nos. 2 to 5.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
learned Magistrate has passed an erroneous order, because as
per the complaint, a prima facie case is made out under Sections
147, 323, 352, 379, 504 and 506 of the IPC against the accused
persons and hence, the impugned order should be set aside and
learned Magistrate should be directed to make further enquiry
and take cognizance.
6. However, learned APP for the State and learned
counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 vehemently submit
that basically, there is civil dispute between the complainant and
the accused persons and civil suits are also going on between
them and the complainant has just given criminal colour to a
civil dispute to harass the accused persons.
7. They further submit that as per the averment made
in the complaint, complainant has not exhausted the remedy for
filing police case. There is only averment that their complaint
given to the police station was not accepted and case was not
registered. But, thereafter there is no statement that he has sent a
copy of his written report to the Superintendent of Police. As
such, prerequisites for filing criminal complaint are not fulfilled.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1319 of 2019 dt.04-04-2025
8. I considered the submissions advanced by the
parties and perused the materials available on record.
9. I find that undisputedly, there is civil dispute
between the parties in regard to the land and even Civil Suit is
going on between them in the Civil Court.
10. I further find that the complainant before filing the
complaint has not sent a copy of the written report to the
Superintendent of Police, upon refusal of the SHO of the
concerned police station to lodge FIR. Hence, prerequisites for
filing the complaint are not fulfilled. Moreover, it also appears
that complainant has filed this complaint mala fide giving
criminal colour to the civil dispute with an intent to harass the
accused persons.
11. Hence, in view of Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State
of UP, [(2015) 6 SCC 287] and State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Bhajan Lal & Anr. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
12. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision
petition is dismissed for want of any merit.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Shahnawaz/shoaib
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.04.2025
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1319 of 2019 dt.04-04-2025
Transmission Date 07.04.2025
