JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Jay Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Satish Prasad, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 04.01.2017 passed in Protest Complaint No.724/2016 in connection with G.R. Case No.3551/2015 arising out of Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.107/2015, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that on 28.01.2015, the informant had purchased a land bearing Khata No.48 Plot No.579, area 16 decimals from Ramlal Pahan and the sale deed was executed after registration of the land and she is in peaceful possession over the land. It was further alleged in the FIR that on 06.05.2015, the villagers informed the informant that on her land a house is being constructed. The informant immediately reached there and saw that Dhanraj Pahan of the same village was making construction work on her plot and one Nooman Ansari of the same village who deals in land business, Lakshman Nayak and Shiv Nath Pahan @ Bhondla were standing that place. It was further alleged that the informant shown her registered sale deed and had made request to stop construction work, but they were threatening to assault the informant and using filthy languages and were coming towards the informant, due to fear the informant fled away from that place and entered inside the house of one Ehsaan Ansari near that plot. It was further alleged that Dhanraj Pahan and his sons Sohan Pahan, Mohan Pahan and wife Suman Devi and the persons of village namely Prem Pahan, Dinesh Pahan, Ratho Devi, Puni Devi, Ramdhan Pahan surrounded the house of Ehsaan Ansari and they were armed with Farsa, Gadansa, Lathi Danda, Bhala etc. Then the informant had given information to the police by phone and police from Ormanjhi Police Station came at that place and pacified the matter. It was also alleged that on 08.05.2015, they again started construction work then the informant had made an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to stop them to make construction thereafter the police had again stopped them to make construction. It was further alleged that on 15.05.2015, when the informant had gone to the plot then again they were making construction over that plot and Dhanraj Pahan, Nooman Ansari, Shivnath Pahan and Lakshman Nayak on seeing the informant became aggressive and they had caught the hand and hair of the informant and were pushing her and had snatched golden chain from the neck of the informant and they were tore her cloth in bad intention and Nooman Ansari and Lakshman Nayak were abusing the informant and said that the land is not of your father and Shivnath Pahan @ Bhondla and Dhanraj Pahan were also abusing her and were threatening that if she will come again on the plot they will cut her in pieces and after digging the plot, she will put in that plot thereafter the informant fled away from the plot saving her life.

4. Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said FIR was investigated by the police and final form has been submitted and by the final form, the petitioners were not sent up for trial. He further submits that on protest petition, the learned court has taken cognizance. He also submits that even the dead persons have been made accused. He draws attention of the Court to the order taking cognizance and submits that although the observation in the cognizance order has been made about grudge between the parties, however the learned court has taken cognizance, which is not in accordance with law. There is no reason, assigned of differing with the final form in the order taking cognizance. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal case is abuse of process of law.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the police has not invest