TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the complaint prima facie make out the offences falling under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC or not - Instead the High Court in Para 6 gave importance to the fact that since there was a dispute pending between the parties in the Civil Court in relation to a shop as being landlord and tenant, it is essentially a civil dispute between the parties - This approach of the High Court is faulty. The High Court failed to see that mere pendency of a civil suit is not an answer to the question as to whether a case under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or not - The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) No.1151 of 2018) - - - Dated:- 15-4-2019 - Abhay Manohar Sapre And Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR, Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.27078 of 2013 whereby the High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed by respondent Nos.2 3 herein and quashed the complaint filed by the appellant herein. 3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examined the case in para 6, which reads as under: 6. On perusal of complaint petition, I find that the complainant has asserted that firstly, he had contracted for purchasing the shop premises from the land owner, but the petitioners offered more money and got the document registered in their favour. There is no chit of paper on record to support the agreement of sale or payment of any amount to the land owner. The petitioners claim to be bona fide purchaser of the shop premises, which was in tenancy of the complainant. The petitioners have filed an Eviction Suit No.10 of 2012, in which the complainant has filed his written statement admitting tenancy in the said shop premises. The complainant has further asserted that he has been re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. 14. The High Court failed to see that mere pendency of a civil suit is not an answer to the question as to whether a case under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or not. 15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizance is made out or not, the Court is only required to see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
