1. Heard the parties.

2. This application has been filed against the order dated 9.4.2008 by which the discharge application of the petitioners has been rejected in Complaint Case No. 950(C) of 2004, passed by Sri Manoj Kumar Rai, Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Biharsharif, Nalanda. The petitioners were accused of an offence under Sections 385 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegations in the complaint petition in short are that the complainant was intending to make some constructions on plot nos. 1204 and 1206 as described in the complaint petition. It is alleged that the petitioners alongwith others came to plots in question and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for allowing the complainant to make constructions and also allegedly commited theft, by taking away one quintal of iron rod and 10 bags of cement.

4. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the case is false and fabricated, it has been instituted maliciously and the complainant has no right or title over the land in question, whereas the case of the complainant is that he has validly purchased the land from the co- sharer of the petitioner no. 1, the decree on which the complainant relies to say that the lands were allocated in his share in a partition suit is a forged and fabricated document. It is said that the case has been filed by the Anchal Adhikari alleging that the petitioners have forged the decree and the facts disclose that there is a case of theft and demand of Rangdari against the petitioners.

5. The background of the case is that the petitioner no. 1 who is a doctor aged out eighty years and petitioner no. 2 is the counsel of this High Court. Petitioner no. 2 on 11.7.2004 by Annexure-4 had instituted a case in the police station alleging that the complainant alongwith others had come to his agricultural land and tried to interfere with his work. The complainant left the land and filed a complaint before the police station which resulted in a proceeding under Sections 144 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the proceeding was instituted, the present complaint case was filed seven or eight months after the initiation of proceeding.

6. The petitioners had raised their claim on a decree passed in Title Suit No. 193 of 1959 dated 20.2.1960 and had also submitted before this Court that in fact plot nos. 1204 and 1206 were acquired by the Railway. The Court directed the petitioners to make the Railway a party in this case and a copy of this application was duly served. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Senior Divisional Engineer to East Central Railway, Danapur. The original decree passed in Title Suit No. 193 of 1959 indicates that plot nos. 1204 and 1206 fell in the share of the father of petitioner no. 1 and grandfather of petitioner no. 2. Some of the plots were settled by a compromise petition which are mentioned in schedule-1 to 6 indicate that the person to whom the plots were allotted in the previous partition.

7. It was argued on behalf of the opposite party that the photocopy of the decree in this Court and the original differ from each other however, on careful perusal of the original decree and the photo copy filed in this Court, I find that there is no discrepancy regarding the originality of the decree and it cannot be said that a false document has been filed in this Court. The facts aforesaid leads to the conclusion that the lands in question belong to the petitioner and as such the story made out in the complaint petition that the petitioners would demand Rs. 50,000/- as Rangdari to allow the complainant/opposite party to build on a land on which he has title is improbable, abused and impossible to believe and therefore that part of the allegation has to be rejected by this Court.

8. I would also like to refer to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Senior Divisional Engineer to East Central Railway, Danapur. In the affidavit it has been categorically stated that the land