Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners in the present case are seeking setting aside of the order dated 16.01.2015 passed by learned C.J.M., Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 265 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned C.J.M. has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 417, 379, 420, 465, 468, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against all the six accused persons and has ordered to issue summons against the petitioners.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant Malik Pandey filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 1256 C of 2014 before the learned C.J.M. Bettiah, West Champaran stating therein that he has acquired land measuring area 08 katha and 13 dhur through sale deed dated 13.04.1977 from Pandit Gaya Pandey. It is alleged that under a conspiracy, the said land was sold by Bhulai Raut (petitioner no. 1) to Manager Yadav (petitioner no. 3) and Gopi Yadav (petitioner no. 2) on 06.11.2013 through two sale deeds. It is further alleged that on 02.07.2014 at about 04:00 P.M. all the accused persons armed with deadly weapons came to capture the said land and assaulted the informant. They also snatched Rs.270/- from the pocket of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on a plain reading of the first information report itself which has been lodged after the learned Magistrate exercised his power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. it would appear that the dispute between the parties is a purely civil dispute which has been tried to be given a color of criminal proceeding.

5. Learned counsel submits that the disputed land is recorded in the name of one Ramkhelawan who is the grandfather of the petitioner Bhulai Raut, Son of Late Dukhi Raut. The petitioner no. 1, Bhulai Raut sold this piece of land as owner of the property to the petitioner Gopi Yadav and Manager Yadav and on the sale deeds the petitioners, namely, Dhanjeet Yadav and Munna Raut have signed as witness. It is submitted that the informant is also claiming his right over the land in question and now a title suit bearing title suit no. 377 of 2014 is pending in the court of learned Sub-Judge, 1st, Bettiah, West Champaran.

6. Learned counsel submits that the suit has been brought by the informant Malik Pandey and the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the defendants in the said suit. Referring to the plaint of the title suit which has been brought on record as Annexure ‘2’, learned counsel submits that in the suit the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration of their title and possessions over the disputed piece of land as mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint. It is submitted that the defendants in the said suit have already appeared and filed their written statements in which the defendants are contesting the claim of the informant in the land in question. In paragraph ‘22’ of the written statement, it is specifically stated that the plaintiffs were neither then nor now in possession of the land and it is the defendant first party who are coming in possession of the property and prior to them the vendor of the defendants were in possession. The submission is that the allegations made in the FIR that these petitioners were indulged in taking forceful possession of the land are being keenly contested by the parties in the civil suit.

7. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another vs. State of Uttranchal and Others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, learned counsel submits that this is one of the cases in which a purely civil dispute has been converted into a criminal proceeding. According to him, continuation of the present case would only be an abuse of the process of court.

8. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015)