IMPORTANT POINT
The court quashed the criminal proceedings due to malicious intent behind the complaint, referencing prior dismissal of a title suit.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar (3), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. Nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P. No. 2, in spite of his appearance through advocate, that’s why this matter is being heard in absence of O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 16.01.2016, in connection with C.P. Case No. 2317 of 2015, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

3. The complaint case was filed by the O.P. No. 2 alleging therein that one joint land and building property popularly known as Mundrika Mansion is situated at Main Road of Jharia within the district of Dhanbad in the name of Grand- mother, who expired on 15.8.1992, of the complainant and no partition is made between the legal heirs of the said grand-mother. The accused persons are collecting the rent from the tenant illegally and arbitrarily and dishonestly misappropriating the amount in personal use to the joint earned amount for their unjust gains under different type of threats for dire consequences and to drag in false criminal cases as provided to the ladies. All the accused persons connivance with each other under pre planned collecting the handsome amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month since 1996 from the tenant of the said joint property as Mundrika Mansion but not paying the share of the complainant and other co-sharers under the threats. Accused the no. has made rent receipts at her own and restrained to other co-sharers. The petitioners have committed criminal breach of trust by not paying the share of the co-sharers and has cheated dishonestly by capturing the entire ancestral property of the complainant and other co-sharers of the said joint property whose interest the offender was bound by law and has committed theft by taking the rent amount monthly and by not making payment to the eligible co-sharers. The petitioners on 16.8.15 denied to partition of the said joint property and also denied to pay the shares to the complainant and other co- sharers and further threatened to face the dire consequences and to drag in false criminal cases.

On the basis of the said complaint, a case being C.P. Case no. 2317 of 2015 for the alleged offence under Sections 323, 504, and 417 of the Indian Penal Code has been instituted against the petitioners.

Mr. Manoj Kumar (3), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is relationship between the petitioners and the complainant. He submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are aunt and cousin sister of O.P. No. 2 and the petitioner No. 2 is the husband of the cousin sister of the O.P. No. 2. He further submits that mala fidely the present case has been filed against the petitioners due to property dispute. He submits that in the solemn affirmation, the averment is already there about the property dispute and about the non-receiving of the rent of the said property by the O.P. No. 2. He further submits that one title suit being Title Suit No. 131 of 2007 was instituted by the complainant himself for property in question and the said title suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 19.07.2010 itself and thereafter the present complaint has been filed in the year 2015. He submits that maliciously the said complaint has been filed and falsely the petitioners have been made accused in the said complaint.

5. Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that on the complaint petition, the learned court has taken the cognizance.

6. The court has gone through the contents of the complaint petition as well as the solemn affirmation. In the solemn affirmation, there are averments that there are disputes between the parties with regard to certain property. In the solemn affirmation, it has been further disclosed that the rent is being not paid to the O.P. No. 2. Further the Title Suit No. 131 of 2007 was instituted by the complainant