The companyplainant has further asserted that he has been remitting rent of the said shop regularly and when he learnt about the transfer of shop premises in favour of the petitioners, the companyplainant has filed a Title Suit No.2 of 2012.
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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA whereby the High Court allowed the Criminal Date 2019.04.15 170010 IST Reason Miscellaneous Application filed by respondent Nos.2 1 1 3 herein and quashed the companyplaint filed by the appellant herein.
So, the short question which arises for companysideration in this appeal filed by the 2 2 companyplainant is whether the Judicial Magistrate was right in holding that a prima facie case is made out against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for companymission of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC so as to call upon them to face the trial on merits or whether the High Court was right in holding that numberprima facie case has been made out against respondent Nos.2 and 3.
By impugned order, the High Court quashed the order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Saran at Chapra in Complaint Case No.21/2012 whereby the Judicial Magistrate took companynizance of the companyplaint filed by the appellant herein against respondent Nos.
2 and 3 for companymission of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short IPC by holding that a prima facie case was made out against respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the basis of allegations made in the companyplaint.
The relationship of landlord and tenant stands admitted by the companyplainant in the eviction suit.
The petitioners have filed an Eviction Suit No.10 of 2012, in which the companyplainant has filed his written statement admitting tenancy in the said shop premises.
3 3 The High Court examined the case in para 6, which reads as under On perusal of companyplaint petition, I find that the companyplainant has asserted that firstly, he had companytracted for purchasing the shop premises from the land owner, but the petitioners offered more money and got the document registered in their favour.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are companystrained to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 13.02.2013.
The dispute between the parties appears to be a civil dispute.
There is numberchit of paper on record to support the agreement of sale or payment of any amount to the land owner.
A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point.
Heard Mr. Binay Kumar Das, learned companynsel for the appellant, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Raj, learned companynsel for respondent Nos.2 3 and Mr. Devashish Bharuka, learned companynsel for respondent No.1State.
