IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment in civil disputes, and that the existence of a civil remedy precludes the initiation of criminal proceedings in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

1. The present application preferred for quashing the order of cognizance dated 19-07-2015/20- 07-2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Vaishali at Hajipur, in Tr. No.163/15 arising out of Complaint Case No. 529 of 2015, whereby and where under the learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence under sections 323, 379, 384 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present case are that one Sunil Kumar (O.P. No. 2) filed a complaint Case in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali vide C.A. No. 529/2015 alleging there in that the father of the Opposite party no.2 had made an registered agreement on 18-1-1993 in his life time, in which all the brothers and legal heirs were made parties and accordingly Binod Kumar (petitioner) was appointed for realization of rent as well as maintenance of the Soni Alankar Complex. Shop of said complex was given on rent with consent of all the parties and realized rent would be equally distributed among the parties. It is further alleged that Binod Kumar (petitioner) executed a lease agreement with the L.I.C as well as UCO Bank without consent of other co-sharers and realized rent was not given to complainant till date since 1993. Therefore, on 17-01-2009 younger brother of the complainant served a legal notice to the Branch Manager of the L.I.C. and also served a legal notice to the petitioner no. 2 (since died) on 18-07-2009 and 8-10-2009 respectively. But even after death of party Amod Kumar (brother) on 02.04.2006, Chunnu Prasad (father) on 12-12-1999 and mother of the complainant on 29-12-2007, the petitioner no.2 went for a fresh agreement of lease with the L.I.C. It is further alleged that the agreement dated 18-01-1999 has already expired between the petitioner No.2 and complainant since some parties have already expired and no fresh agreement has been made with the legal heirs of the deceased.

3. It is further alleged that the complainant also to served a legal notices dated 02-12-14 and 6-1-2015 to the petitioner no.2 and requested to produce the accounts and also to give the dues realized rent money since 1993 and subsequently on 19-2-2015 at 11 A.M. the complainant went to meet the petitioners at the Complex and demanded the share of realized rent, thereupon all the accused persons started to abuse the complainant, whereupon petitioner no. 2 forcibly took his signature on a non judicial stamps paper and a gold chain worth Rs. 60,000/-was snatched by Neelam Devi (wife of petitioner no.1) during occurrence and after caring of the family members of the complainant his life could be saved. All the accused had a common intention to grab the realized rent money of the complex, which is about 1 (one) crore.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present criminal case was filed falsely with ulterior motive to create a pressure to settle the partition suit pending before the Court of Civil Judge-I, Hajipur, Vaishali, bearing Partition Suit No. 835/2013. It is submitted that petitioner was authorized by 11 co-sharers of the property alongwith opposite party no.2 through a registered deed of agreement dated 18.01.1993 as to rent out the properties under descriptions to individuals and offices and also to collect rents over there and to distribute equally among co-sharers qua the parties of said agreement. It is submitted that on one said occasion, when one of the buildings was given on rent to LIC, dispute was arisen and thereafter, opposite party no. 2 being one of the co-sharer filed partition suit. It is submitted that even the allegations of theft and demanding extortion is available against wife of petitioner no. 1, Nilam Devi, who was also one of the co-sharer of the property but she died during the pendency of present petition and accordingly, her name was deleted vide order dated 06.12.2023. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that other co-sharers, w