SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Pat) 755

PATNA HIGH COURT
Abhijit Sinha, J.
Bhagwan Poddar
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25670 of 2007 ;
Decided On : JUNE 24, 2008

Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires cases arising from the same incident to be tried by the same court.

Headnote:

Quashing - Land Dispute - Section 210 Cr.P.C. - [Section 210 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires cases arising out of the same incident and appearing to be counter to each other to be tried by the same court. The court's decision was influenced by this provision, leading to the dismissal of the application for quashing.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought quashing of an order rejecting the revision against the cognizance order in a land dispute case. The complainant alleged forcible obstruction of legal process and filed a complaint case, while the petitioner claimed innocence based on a court decree in his favor.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no merit in the application for quashing and dismissed it, citing the requirement for cases arising from the same incident to be tried by the same court under Section 210 Cr.P.C.

Issues: The issues involved the alleged forcible obstruction of legal process, conflicting claims based on a court decree, and the application for quashing the cognizance order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 210 Cr.P.C., which mandates cases arising from the same incident to be tried by the same court.

Final Decision: The application for quashing was dismissed by the court.

Judgment

1. The petitioner who is one of the accused in Complaint Case No. 190C of 2003 has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.1.2007 passed by Sri Deepak Kumar Sinha, Learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Munger, in Cr. Revision No. 421 of 2004, whereby the revision against the cognizance order dated 12.8.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Complaint Case No. 190C/2003 has been rejected. An additional prayer for quashing the order of cognizance dated 12.8.2004 has also been made.

2. Uma Devi wife of Sudhir Sharma, impleaded herein as OP. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint inter a\ia stating that she has her own house and land in khesra nos. 1904, 1906, 1912 and khesra no. 1905 is adjacent to the said khesra and a civil dispute has arisen between the complainant and the petitfoner with regard to khesra no. 1905 in which a decree was passed. The petitioner filed an execution case bearing no. 5 of 1988 to take possession over khesra no. 1905 and the complainant filed a Miscellaneous Case No. 13 of 2000 claiming that the decree cannot be executed as the petitioner has given wrong description and boundary in order to grab the lands of the complainant. It is also alleged that during the proceeding of Misc. Case No. 13 of 2000 the learned Munsif-I passed an order directing the Nazir to handover possession of khesra no. 1905 to the petitioner and the Nazir having gone to the lands in question reported that without any measurement of the land by a survey knowing pleader handing over the possession thereof to the petitioner was not possible. However, the learned Munsif directed for handing over of the possession of the land on the basis of given boundary of the land. It is further alleged that accused no. 10 Surendra Kishore Sinha in connivance with the petitioner reached Purabsarai at Shah Zubair Road More alongwith police force from Kotwali Police Station, five sons and son-in-law of the petitioner and peons of the Civil Court on 10.3.2003 at about 10.45 A.M. to take possession of the land allegedly without any order of the Court. It is also alleged that Nazir ordered the accused persons and the accomplices of the petitioner to vacate the house of the complainant situated in khesra nos. 1904, 1906 and 1912 and if they objected then they were to be looted. They even refused to heed the request of the husband of the complainant for measurement of khesra no. 1905 and allegedly tried to enter into the house of the complainant by force. It is also said that the Nazir ordered to set ablaze the shop, whereupon accused Chakradhar Poddar and Anant Poddar allegedly set the shop on fire whereafter the sons of the petitioner and peons of the Civil Court allegedly tried to take away almirah, chair, palang etc. worth Rs. 20,000/- from the shop which was resisted by Sudhir Sharma, whereupon the son-in-law of the petitioner and his men in khaki allegedly started pelting stones and firing. Binod Poddar and Chakradhar Poddar allegedly inflicted blows on the head of Sudhir Sharma with a rod with an intention to kill him. They also threw many bombs, whereupon the police forcibly arrested Sudhir Sharma and the accused fled away with all goods of the shop. It is alleged that Akash Poddar got injured due to pelting of stones by the accused persons.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has committed no offence. It has also been submitted that he possesses a decree from a competent Court in respect of the concerned land bearing khesra no. 1905 but the complainant and her family members were bent upon not handing over the possession of the said lands to him, whereupon he had to file execution case and got an order of delivery of possession in his favour and when the petitioner alongwith the Nazir of Civil Court and other employees went to take possession over the concerned land with police force the complainant and her family members assembled and tried to forcibly obstruc



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top