SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shankar Prasad @ Shankar Sao vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 23 March, 2018


Criminal Miscellaneous No.25430 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1026 Year- 2011 Thana -PATNA COM PLAINT CASE District-

Shankar Prasad @ Shankar Sao S/o – Late Kameshwar Sao, R/o – Sipara, Beside
Saw Mill, P.S.- By Pass , District- Patna.

…. …. Petitioner/s

1. The State of Bihar

2. Manisha Gupta wife of Shri Ganesh Sao resident of Birla Mandir Road, I n
front of Chruch Gate, P.S. Pirbahore, District- Patna.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal
For the State : Mr. Narsing Tanti, APP
For Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. Sunil Kumar

Date: 23-03-2018

Challenging the order dated 20th February, 2013 passed

by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No.

1026(C) of 2011 taking cognizance for offence under Sections 406

and 420 read with Section 120(B) IPC this application has been filed

under Section 482 Cr.PC.

On a bare reading of the complaint in question it is seen

that the allegations are that on the request of the applicant the

complainant agreed to enter into an agreement for sale and purchase

of land. Agreement for sale was executed and after execution of the

sale deed in pursuance to the agreement it has come to the notice of

the accused person that a civil suit with regard to the land in question
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.25430 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018


is pending. Inter alia, contending that in concealing the facts about

the pendency of the civil suit offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC

is made out. The complaint has been registered and contending that

mere pendency of the civil suit and its concealment even if is

accepted on the face of it will not constitute an offence under Section

406 IPC. Therefore this application has been filed for quashing the


Even though the learned counsel for the respondent-

complainant argued that at this stage in a proceeding under Section

482 Cr.PC no case is made out for interference by this Court, but

from the facts and circumstances of the case it is seen that after due

negotiation and payment of consideration for the sale, the deed was

executed and merely because some civil suit pertaining to the land in

question is pending and the material that has come on record, namely,

the complaint, ingredients necessary for constituting the offence

under Section 406 and 420 IPC are not made out. The dispute in

question is purely a civil dispute in the matter of transfer of land and

for the same registration of a criminal case is not a proper remedy as

the ingredients necessary for initiation of the criminal case or

constitution of an offence are not made out and the dispute is a pure

civil dispute with regard to sale and purchase of the land.

Accordingly, this application is allowed, the proceedings
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.25430 of 2015 dt.23-03-2018


initiated in Complaint Case No. 1026(C) of 2011 stands quashed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ)


Uploading Date 27.03.2018
Transmission 27.03.2018

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation