HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 28 -2 -2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 646/2003, Corresponding to T.R. No. 1009/2004.
(2.) FACTS leading to the filing of this application are that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 29 -6 -2003 at about 9 AM opposite party No. 2 complainant was in his house along with his wife and children and at that moment the wife of the complainant was getting ready to go to the market and at that time all the accused persons, who are petitioners here, variously armed, entered into the house of the complainant and started assaulting the wife of the complainant and snatched away a golden chain worth of Rs. 8.000.00 and cash of Rs. 500.00 from the wife of the complainant. On this piece of allegation a complaint case was filed on 14 -7 -2003. Complainant was examined on SA on 16 -8 -2003 and enquiry was held under Sec.202, Cr. PC. and three witnesses were examined and all the witnesses sported the occurrence and on the basis of enquiry held under Section 202, Cr. P. C. learned Court of Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners under Secs. 147,323,448 and 379, IPC. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that prior to the filing of the complaint case, there was a proceeding between the parties under Section 107 Cr.P.C. in which petitioner is the first party and the complainant is the second party and the learned SDM by order dated 6 -11 - 2003 has mentioned in the order that first party claims a piece of land vide registered sale deed and the second party also claims the land vide agreement from the same owner and considering that there is likelihood of breach of peace at the hands of second party, the members of second party were directed to execute bond of Rs. 5000.00 each. From the above order dated 6 -11 -2003 it is apparently clear that the complainant, who was the second party was the aggressor and hence he was directed to execute bond. It is stated that the dispute is for a piece of land 10 ' wide and 40 long and the aforesaid land in question belonged to one Tarkeshwar Nath Kataria and the opposite party No. 2 used to land as party and the said Tarkeshwar Nath Kataria executed an agreement with the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 2 paid Rs. 10.000.00 . It is further stated that total value of the sale was Rs. 25000.00 but the opposite party No. 2 paid only Rs. 10.000.00 and failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 15.000.00 by April, 2003, which was the date fixed for payment of money. It was further pointed out that as the time was essence of the contract and as such, Tarkeshwar Nath Kataria chose to sell the land to the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 1 purchased the same by way of registered sale deed executed in the month of May, 2003 and as a result of this action, the opposite party No. 2 became furious and he threatened both Tarkeshwar Nath Kataria arid petitioner No. 1 to implicate them in a false criminal case. The complainant opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint case No. 506/2003 in the Court of CJM Hazaribagh making Tarkeshwar Nath Kataria as an accused in the said matter cognizance of the offence was taken by order dated 12 -8 -2003 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. It is further submitted that present case is filed as a result of vindictiveness attitude taken by the complainant opposite party No. 2 against the petitioners including petitioner No. 1 and the case is one vague one and no reason has been assigned as to why the petitioners entered into the house and assaulted the wife of the complainant and snatched golden chain worth of Rs. 8000.00 and a sum of Rs. 500.00 . It was further submitted that entire family members of petitioner No. 1 have been falsely implicated in the present case.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the complaint -opposite party No. 2 submitted that after due consideration of the allegations made in the complaint petition and after holding inquiry in the case and on the basis of the evidence of witnesses, cognizance in the case has been taken. It was further submitted that when on the basis of allegations in the complaint petition prima facie case is made out, the High Court has no jurisdiction to quash the proceeding and the High Court will not be justified in judging probability, reliability and genuineness of the allegation made and power to quash proceeding should be exercised only in extra -ordinary circumstances. In this connection, reliance was placed upon - - - - . It was further submitted that quashing of the complaint on the ground that the complainant disclosed commercial or money transaction is not justified, as cheating cases are committed in course of commercial or money transaction and, therefore, such case should not be quashed. In this connection, reliance was placed upon - - - - .;