Criminal law should not be put in motion for a civil dispute, and filing a complaint as a counter blast is not a valid reason to initiate criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shiv Sankar Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Satyam Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 10.06.2013 in connection with C.P. Case No. 2276 of 2012, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad.

3. The complaint petition was filed alleging therein that complainant has some ancestral property at Bhago Road No. 4 Jharia which consists three rooms and Parti land and two rooms are being used for his business.

It was further alleged that on 20.09.2012 accused no.1 and 2 namely, Ranjit Pandit and Pradeep Pandit in connivance with petitioner Laxmi Kant Joshi had broken the lock and stolen away one wooden bed one pillow and cash of Rs. 95,000/-.

It was further alleged that after stolen one pillow and bed, the accused no. 3-petitoner got fitted a plywood in the room. On the basis of these allegations, the present complaint has been filed.

4. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court has taken cognizance vide order dated 10.06.2013 under sections 447/379/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner and two others. He submits that the complaint is with regard to the dispute of property at Bhaga Road No. 4, with respect to Mauza No. 131, being MADA Holding No. 297 (A), Ward No. IV. He submits that the said property belongs to Pradeep Kumar and Ranjit Kumar @ Pandit who are accused nos. 1 and 2. He submits that the complainant was inducted as tenant in respect of one shop room premises. He submits that there is agreement of tenancy dated 30.10.1999 executed by the complainant and the accused no. 2. He submits that the complainant has defaulted in payment of rent and Pradeep Pandit has filed a suit for eviction under Section 11(1) (c) (d) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act against the complainant in the year 2009 numbered as Title (E) Suit No. 8/2009. He submits that the accused no. 2 on appearance of complainant in suit, filed a petition under section 15 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act for direction upon complainant for payment of rent and the learned Munsif, Dhanbad has been pleased to pass an order dated 16.11.2009 directing the complainant to pay the rent to the accused no. 2. He submits that the said order dated 16.11.2009 was challenged by the complainant before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5947 of 2009 and the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2010 affirming the order of the learned Munsif. He further submits that the complainant thereafter filed Title Suit No. 54 of 2010 against the accused no. 2 for decree for declaration of right, title and interest and possession of the complainant. He further submits that thereafter the present complaint has been filed on 01.10.2012. He submits that this is malafide prosecution filed for a civil wrong and counter blast.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that other two accused persons are absconding however, petitioner has appeared. He submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that looking into the solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses, the learned court has taken cognizance.

7. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the material on record and finds that the learned Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner on the solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses. The Court further finds that for the dispute between the parties Title (E) Suit No. 8/2009 and Title Suit No. 54 of 2010 have been filed by the accused no. 2 and the complainant respectively. Looking into the complaint petition, it transpires that there is no averment in the petition that the petitioner has approached the concerned police s