SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shyam Babu Yadav vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 1 May, 2019

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATPATNA
CRIMINALMISCELLANEOUSNo.3396of2015
ArisingOutofComplaintCaseNo.-1084Year-2012Thana-PATNACOMPLAINTCASE
District-Patna

ShyamBabuYadav,SonofLateYamunaPrasadYadavResidentofMohalla-

PuraniKankarbagh,GateNo.14,P.S.-PatrakarNagar,TownandDistrict

-Patna.

……Petitioner/s

Versus

1.TheStateofBihar

2.AshokKumarYadav,SonofLateChotuLal,ResidentofMohalla-Purani

Kankarbagh,GateNo.14,P.S.-LohiyaNagar,P.S.-PatrakarNagar,Town

andDistrict-Patna.

……OppositeParty/s

Appearance:

ForthePetitioner/s:Mr.BijendraPrasadSinhawith
Mr.AnjaniKumarSinha,Advocates
FortheOppositeParty/s:Mr.JitendraPrasadSinghwith
Mr.ArvindKumarPandey
FortheState:Mr.JharkhandiUpadhyay,APP

CORAM:HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEAHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORALJUDGMENT
Date:01-05-2019

Heardlearnedcounselforthepetitioner;learnedAPPfor

theStateandlearnedcounselfortheoppositepartyno.2.

2.ThepetitionerhasmovedtheCourtunderSection482

oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973forthefollowingrelief:

“Thatthispetitionisbeingfiledfor
quashingtheorderdated17.11.2012passedbySri
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.3396of2015dt.01-05-2019
2/11

AsutoshKhetan,theLearnedJudicialMagistrate1st
Class,PatnaSadarincomplaintcaseNo.1084(c)/12
bywhichhehastakencognizanceagainstthe
petitionerfortheoffenceunderSectionsection406I.P.C.”

3.Theallegationagainstthepetitionerinthecomplaint

casefiledbytheoppositepartyno.2isthatdespitehavingagreed

tosellthehouse/landbelongingtothepetitionerforRs.

25,00,000/-andonreceiptofRs.23,50,000/-,neithersaledeed

wasexecuted,despitetheoppositepartyno.2beingreadytopay

theremainingamountofRs.1,50,000/-,northemoneywas

returned.Itwasfurtherallegedthatwhentheoppositepartyno.2

wenttoaskforreturnofthemoney,hewasabusedandthe

petitionerbecamereadytoassaultalso.

4.Learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmittedthatfrom

theentirecomplaintcase,nocriminaloffenceismadeoutand,

thus,thepresentcaseisanabuseoftheprocessoftheCourt.It

wassubmittedthateveniftheallegationsareacceptedattheirface

value,thegrievanceoftheoppositepartyno.2thatdespite

receivingRs.23,50,000/-andhebeingreadytopaytheremaining

considerationamountofRs.1,50,000/-,thehouse/landforwhich

therewasanagreementforsalenotbeinghonouredbythe

petitioner,theonlyremedyavailabletohimwastoapproachthe

CivilCourtofcompetentjurisdictionforspecificperformanceof

theagreementorforreturnofthemoney.Learnedcounsel
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.3396of2015dt.01-05-2019
3/11

submittedthatevenaspertheallegation,thesocalledagreement

betweenthepartiesisnotregisteredandthereisnosignatureof

thepetitioneronthepagesexceptforthefirsttwopagesand,thus,

basedonthesame,itcannotbesaidthattherewasanylegal

entrustment.Learnedcounselsubmittedthatallegationofabuse

andplanningofassaultareonlycosmeticforthepurposesof

givingsomecriminalcolourtotheepisode.

5.LearnedAPPsubmittedthattheCourtbelow,based

onmaterials,hastakencognizance.However,hesubmittedthat

thereisapredominantcivilnatureintheallegationwhichindicates

thatthecomplainthasbeenfiledforobliquereason.

6.Learnedcounselfortheoppositepartyno.2

submittedthatthepetitionerhasmisappropriatedRs.23,50,000/-

givenbyhimfortransferofthepropertyinquestionand,thus,the

cognizancebytheCourtbelowunderSection406oftheIndian

PenalCodeisjustified.However,onaqueryoftheCourtasto

whyhedidnotapproachthecivilCourtofcompetentjurisdiction

forsuchrelief,theanswerwasthatthelitigationonthecivilside

wastimetaking.

7.Havingconsideredthefactsandcircumstancesofthe

caseandsubmissionsoflearnedcounselfortheparties,theCourt

findsthatacaseforinterferencehasbeenmadeout.
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.3396of2015dt.01-05-2019
4/11

8.Firstandforemost,fromtheentirereadingofthe

complaint,exceptfortheallegationofabuse,andplantoassault,

nootherelementcanbesaidtobringthecaseundertheambitofa

criminalproceeding.Infact,fromthecomplaintitself,the

avermentsbeingthattherewasanagreementbetweentheparties

andtheoppositepartyno.2claimstohavesubstantiallycomplied

withtherequirementsonhispartandthatthepetitionerdidnot

confirmtohisobligationundertheagreement,clearlyshowsthatit

isadisputerelatingtoenforcementofanagreementand,thus,

purelywithinthejurisdictionandscopeofacivilproceeding

beforetheCompetentCourt.Further,itwasopentotheopposite

partyno.2bothtoprayforspecificperformanceoftheagreement

orinthealternativereturnofthemoneypaidtothepetitioner

alongwithcompensation/interest.However,recoursetocriminal

proceedingisclearlynotpermissible.TheCourtalsofinds

substanceinthecontentionoflearnedcounselforthepetitioner

thatthemerevague,generalandomnibusreferenceofthe

petitionerhavingabusedandalsopreparingtoassault,clearly,is

tootenuousagroundtojustifycontinuanceofthecriminal

prosecution.TheCourtwouldalsonoteherethatfromperusalof

thesocalledagreementbetweentheparties,copyofwhichhas

beenbroughtonrecordbytheoppositepartyno.2himself,it
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.3396of2015dt.01-05-2019
5/11

wouldbeclearthatonlythefirsttwopageshavebeensignedby

thepetitionerandtheremainingpagesdonotcontainhissignature

andmostimportantly,thesameisunregistered.Thus,therecannot

beanycriminalbreachoftrust,forthedefinitionunderSection

405oftheIndianPenalCodestipulatesthatwhoeverisentrusted

withpropertyorwithanydominionoverproperty,dishonestly

misappropriatesorconvertstohisownusethatproperty,or

dishonestlyusesordisposesofthatpropertyinvioaltionofany

directionoflawprescribingthemodeinwhichsuchtrustistobe

discharged,orofanylegalcontract,expressorimplied,whichhe

hasmadetouchingthedischargeofsuchtrust,orwilfullysuffers

anyotherpersontodoso,commits”criminalbreachoftrust”.

Fromtheabovedefinition,itisclearthatsuchentrustmentand

misappropriationhastobewithregardtoanylegalcontract.Inthe

presentcase,ashasbeennotedabove,thesocalledagreementis

neitherregisterednorsignedbythepetitioneroneverypage,much

less,thelastpagewhichrenderssuchagreementunenforceable

andnon-admissibleinlaw.

9.Inthisconnection,theCourtwouldrefertothe

decisionoftheHon’bleSupremeCourtinSectionAnandKumar

Mohattavs.State(Govt.ofNCTofDelhi)reportedas2019(1)
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.3396of2015dt.01-05-2019
6/11

PLJR(SC)215,whereatparagraphsno.20to23,ithasbeenheld

asunder:

“20.ItisnecessarytorefertoSections405andSection406
oftheIPCinordertoascertain,whetherinthefactsand
circumstancesofthepresentcase,anoffenceunderSection
406ismadeoutagainsttheAppellants.Section405andSection406
oftheIPCreadsasfollows:-

“405.Criminalbreachoftrust.–Whoever,being
inanymannerentrustedwithproperty,orwithanydominion
overproperty,dishonestlymisappropriatesorconvertstohis
ownusethatproperty,ordishonestlyusesordisposesofthat
propertyinviolationofanydirectionoflawprescribingthe
modeinwhichsuchtrustistobedischarged,orofanylegal
contract,expressorimplied,whichhehasmadetouchingthe
dischargeofsuchtrust,orwilfullysuffersanyotherperson
sotodo,commits”criminalbreachoftrust”.

[Explanation[1].–Aperson,beinganemployer
[ofanestablishmentwhetherexemptedunderSectionsection17of
theEmployees’ProvidentFundsandSectionMiscellaneous
ProvisionsAct,1952(19of1952),ornot]whodeductsthe
employee’scontributionfromthewagespayabletothe
employeeforcredittoaProvidentFundorFamilyPension
Fundestablishedbyanylawforthetimebeinginforce,
shallbedeemedtohavebeenentrustedwiththeamountof
thecontributionsodeductedbyhimandifhemakesdefault
inthepaymentofsuchcontributiontothesaidFundin
violationofthesaidlaw,shallbedeemedtohave
dishonestlyusedtheamountofthesaidcontributionin
violationofadirectionoflawasaforesaid.]
[Explanation2.–Aperson,beinganemployer,
whodeductstheemployees’contributionfromthewages
payabletotheemployeeforcredittotheEmployees’State
InsuranceFundheldandadministeredbytheEmployees’
StateInsuranceCorporationestablishedunderthe
Employees’SectionStateInsuranceAct,1948(34of1948),shallbe
deemedtohavebeenentrustedwiththeamountofthe
contributionsodeductedbyhimandifhemakesdefaultin
thepaymentofsuchcontributiontothesaidFundin
violationofthesaidAct,shallbedeemedtohavedishonestly
usedtheamountofthesaidcontributioninviolationofa
directionoflawasaforesaid.]
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.3396of2015dt.01-05-2019
7/11

406.Punishmentforcriminalbreachoftrust.–
Whoevercommitscriminalbreachoftrustshallbepunished
withimprisonmentofeitherdescriptionforatermwhich
mayextendtothreeyears,orwithfine,orwithboth.”

21.Theessenceoftheoffenceliesintheuseofthe
propertyentrustedtoapersonbythatperson,inviolationof
anydirectionoflaworanylegalcontractwhichhehas
madeduringthedischargeofsuchtrust.Inthepresentcase,
theamountofRs.Onecrorewaspaidbythecomplainant-
RespondenttotheAppellantsasaninterestfreedepositon
thesigningoftheagreement.Itwasliabletoberefundedto
thecomplainantsimultaneouslyonhandingoverof
possessionoftheareaoftheowner’ssharetotheownerin
thegrouphousingcomplexvideClause30(b)ofthe
agreementdated03.06.1993.

22.Twothingsaresignificantinthetransaction
betweentheparties.Firstly,thattheoccasionforreturning
theamounti.e.thedeveloperhandingoverthepossessionof
theareaoftheowner’ssharetotheownerinthegroup
housingcomplex,hasnotoccurred.Accordingtothe
Appellants,thecontractstandsfrustratedbecausenogroup
housingcanbelegallybuilton20FerozShahRoad,New
DelhisinceitfallsintheLutyensBungalowZone.Appellant
No.1hastherefore,terminatedthecontract.Further,the
amounthasbeenretainedbyhimasasecuritybecausenot
onlyisthereanyhandingoverofconstructedportion,the
complainanthasalsogotintopartpossessionofthe
propertyandhasnothandeditback.Also,thecomplainant
hasfailedtogetthepropertyvacatedfromthetenant’s
possession.

23.We,thusfindthatitisnotpossibletoholdthat
theamountofRs.Onecrorewhichwaspaidalongwiththe
developmentagreementasadepositcanbesaidtohave
beenentrustmentofpropertywhichhasbeendishonestly
convertedtohisownuseordisposedofinviolationofany
directionoflaworcontractbytheAppellant.TheAppellants
havenotusedtheamountnormisappropriateditcontraryto
anydirectionoflaworcontractwhichprescribeshowthe
amounthastobedealtwith.

Goingbytheagreementdated03.06.1993,the
amounthastobereturneduponthehandingoverofthe
constructedareaoftheownerwhichadmittedlyhasnotbeen
done.MostsignificantlytheRespondentNo.2hasnot
demandedthereturnoftheamountatanypointoftime.In
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.3396of2015dt.01-05-2019
8/11

fact,itisthespecificcontentionoftheRespondentNo.2that
hehasnotdemandedtheamountbecausetheagreementis
stillinsubsistence.

Wedonotseehowitcanbecontendedbyany
stretchofimaginationthattheAppellantshave
misappropriatedtheamountordishonestlyusedtheamount
contrarytoanylaworcontract.Inanycase,wefindthatthe
disputehasthecontoursofadisputeofcivilnatureanddoes
notconstituteacriminaloffence.”

10.Moreover,theHon’bleSupremeCourtinSectionIndianOil

Corpn.v.NEPCIndiaLtd.reportedas(2006)6SCC736,at

paragraphno.13,hasheldasunder:

“13………Anyefforttosettlecivil
disputesandclaims,whichdonotinvolveany
criminaloffence,byapplyingpressurethrough
criminalprosecutionshouldbedeprecatedand
discouraged……”

11.Likewise,theHon’bleSupremeCourtinSectionStateof

Haryanavs.BhajanLalreportedas1992Supp(1)SCC335,at

paragraphno.102,hasenumeratedcategorieswheretheCourt

shouldexerciseitsinherentpowerunderSection482oftheCode.

Thesamereadsasunder:

“102.Inthebackdropoftheinterpretationofthe
variousrelevantprovisionsSectionoftheCodeunderChapterXIV
andoftheprinciplesoflawenunciatedbythisCourtina
seriousofdecisionsrelatingtotheexerciseofthe
extraordinarypowerunderSectionArticle226ortheinherentpowers
underSection482oftheCodewhichwehaveextractedand
reproducedabove,wegivethefollowingcategoriesofcases
bywayofillustrationwhereinsuchpowercouldbeexercised
eithertopreventabuseoftheprocessofanycourtor
otherwisetosecuretheendsofjustice,thoughitmaynotbe
possibletolaydownanyprecise,clearlydefinedand
sufficientlychannelisedandinflexibleguidelinesorrigid
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.3396of2015dt.01-05-2019
9/11

formulaeandtogiveanexhaustivelistofmyriadkindsof
caseswhereinsuchpowershouldbeexercised.

(1)Wheretheallegationsmadeinthefirst
informationreportorthecomplaint,eveniftheyare
takenattheirfacevalueandacceptedintheirentirety
donotprimafacieconstituteanyoffenceormakeouta
caseagainsttheaccused.

(2)Wheretheallegationsinthefirst
informationreportandothermaterials,ifany,
accompanyingtheFIRdonotdiscloseacognizable
offence,justifyinganinvestigationbypoliceofficers
underSection156(1)SectionoftheCodeexceptunderan
orderofaMagistratewithinthepurviewofSection
155(2)oftheCode.

(3)Wheretheuncontrovertedallegations
madeintheFIRorcomplaintandtheevidence
collectedinsupportofthesamedonotdisclosethe
commissionofanyoffenceandmakeoutacase
againsttheaccused.

(4)Where,theallegationsintheFIRdonot
constituteacognizableoffencebutconstituteonlya
non-cognizableoffence,noinvestigationispermitted
byapoliceofficerwithoutanorderofaMagistrateas
contemplatedunderSection155(2)oftheCode.

(5)WheretheallegationsmadeintheFIR
orcomplaintaresoabsurdandinherentlyimprobable
onthebasisofwhichnoprudentpersoncaneverreach
ajustconclusionthatthereissufficientgroundfor
proceedingagainsttheaccused.

(6)Wherethereisanexpresslegalbar
engraftedinanyoftheprovisionsSectionoftheCodeorthe
concernedAct(underwhichacriminalproceedingis
instituted)totheinstitutionandcontinuanceofthe
proceedingsand/orwherethereisaspecificprovision
inSectiontheCodeortheconcernedAct,providingefficacious
redressforthegrievanceoftheaggrievedparty.

(7)Whereacriminalproceedingis
manifestlyattendedwithmalafideand/orwherethe
proceedingismaliciouslyinstitutedwithanulterior
motiveforwreakingvengeanceontheaccusedand
withaviewtospitehimduetoprivateandpersonal
grudge.”

PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.3396of2015dt.01-05-2019
10/11

12.Thepresentcase,intheopinionoftheCourtfalls

undercategories1,3and7oftheaforesaidjudgmentinthecaseof

BhajanLal(supra)atparagraphno.102.

13.Similarly,theCourtinStateofKarnatakav.L.

Muniswamyreportedas(1977)2SCC699,atparagraphno.7,

hasobservedasunder:

“7……….Intheexerciseofthis
wholesomepower,theHighCourtisentitledto
quashaproceedingifitcomestotheconclusionthat
allowingtheproceedingtocontinuewouldbean
abuseoftheprocessoftheCourtorthattheendsof
justicerequirethattheproceedingoughttobe
quashed.ThesavingoftheHighCourt’sinherent
powers,bothincivilandcriminalmatters,is
designedtoachieveasalutarypublicpurposewhich
isthataCourtproceedingoughtnottobepermitted
todegenerateintoaweaponofharassmentor
persecution.Inacriminalcase,theveiledobject
behindalameprosecution,theverynatureofthe
materialonwhichthestructureoftheprosecution
restsandthelikewouldjustifytheHighCourtin
quashingtheproceedingintheinterestof
justice……”

14.Intheaforesaidbackground,theCourtfindsthatthe

prosecutionismalafide,untenableandclearlywiththeintention

toharassthepetitioner.

15.Accordingly,theapplicationisallowed.Theentire

criminalproceedingarisingoutofComplaintCaseNo.1084(C)of

2012,pendingbeforetheCourtbelowatPatna,includingtheorder
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.3396of2015dt.01-05-2019
11/11

dated17.11.2012,bywhichcognizancehasbeentaken,stands

quashed.

(AhsanuddinAmanullah,J.)

P.Kumar

AFR/NAFRAFR
U
T

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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