Chandra Shekhar Jha, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 07.04.2015 passed in Complaint Case No. 27 of 2015, where learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosera-Samastipur, took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 342, 384 & 386 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioners.

3. Despite proper service of notice opposite party No. 2, fails to join the present court proceedings.

4. From the crux of complaint petition it appears that complainant and other witnesses of the present complaint purchased more than 12 bigha land from Chandresekhar Prasad Singh, Nageshwar Prasad Singh, Jyotish Kumar Singh, Prakash Kumar Singh and Bikash Kumar Singh on 19.12.2014, where complainant purchased 10 katha of land. It is alleged that on 05.01.2015 around 10:00 AM all accused persons came with their illegal weapon on the alleged land purchased by complainant. It is further alleged that they all surrounded the complainant at the mention of land and demanded Rs. 50,000/- of levy and threatened that they will not allow complainant to cultivate the aforesaid land and kept complainant as hostage for some hours with them. Petitioners fired some bullet in the air as to threaten complainant and thereafter Sidheshwar Prasad Singh forcefully took Rs. 12,000/- from the pocket of the complainant.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that dispute between parties is civil in nature arising out of land dispute, where due to ulterior and oblique motive just to pressurize the petitioners present criminal proceeding was initiated against above named petitioners. It is further submitted that 12 bighas of land, which was alleged to be purchased by complainant from Chandresekhar Prasad Singh, Nageshwar Prasad Singh, Jyotish Kumar Singh, Prakash Kumar Singh and Bikash Kumar Singh vide sale deed dated 19.12.2014 was made during the pendency of Title Suit No. 198 of 2014 brought by petitioners, which is still pending before learned Sub-Judge 2nd, Rosera-Samastipur. It is submitted that immediately after purchasing the disputed piece of land from the aforesaid defendants of title suit no. 198 of 2014, complainant filed present complaint case on 13.01.2015 as retaliatory measures to check petitioners to proceed with same in civil side.

6. While travelling over the argument learned counsel submitted that in view of aforesaid, present criminal proceeding is nothing but a malicious prosecution out of ulterior and oblique motive and for the said reason alone, present criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of the submissions learned counsel referred the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court, as reported in the matter of Usha Chakraborty and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Another as reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 90.

7. Learned APP appearing for the State, opposes the application.

8. It would be apposite to reproduce the paragraph no(s). 6, 7, 8 and 9 as reported through Usha Chakraborty case (supra), which reads as under: –

6. In Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand, this Court held: –

“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of the facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has