—

Patna High Court

Subhash Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Bihar Through The Home … on 15 March, 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 64 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-425 Year-2023 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna

Subhash Prasad Yadav, Son Of Late Shiv Prasad Yadav R/O Mohalla-
Vidhayak Colony, Kautilya Nagar, P.S.- Hawai Adda, Dist.- Patna

… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through The Home Secretary, Government Of Bihar
Patna
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar Patna
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bihar Patna
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Danapur, Patna Bihar
5. The Station House Officer, Bihta Police Station, Dist.- Patna Bihar
6. Bhim Verma Sonof Suresh Verma R/O Bela, Post- Neura, P.S.- Bihta, Dist.-
Patna

… … Respondent/s

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhumay Madhup, Advocate
Mr. Nishikant, Advocate
Mr. Anand Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shiv Kumar, AC to G.A. – 3

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-03-2024

1. The Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India for the following reliefs :

(i) For issuance of
appropriate Writ / Writs, direction /
directions or orders / order, quashing the
Bihta P. S. Case No. 425 of 2023, dated
04.05.2023

, registered under Sections 447,
448, 341, 342, 323, 384, 386, 406, 420,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
2/12

506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code on
the basis of written application given by
one person, namely, Bhim Verma, against
the above-named Petitioner.

(ii) For issuance of
appropriate Writ / Writs, direction /
directions or orders / order, directing the
Respondents that during the pendency of
the present writ petition, the Respondents
may be restrained from taking any
coercive step in pursuance of the
proceeding in Bihta P. S. Case No. 425 of
2023, dated 04.05.2023.

(iii) For any other relief /
reliefs, which the Hon’ble Court may grant
in general interest, that may be deemed
appropriate and necessary in this case.

2. It is submitted by the Petitioner that the Bihta P.

S. Case No. 425 of 2023, dated 4th of May 2023 under Sections

447, 448, 341, 342, 323, 384, 386, 406, 420, 506 and 120B of

the Indian Penal Code was registered on the basis of a written

complaint submitted by one Bhim Verma, Respondent No. 6

herein, on the allegation that the father of the Informant entered

into an agreement for a tenure of three months with one person,

namely, Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya for sale of a piece

of land. However, the said Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya

did not pay the entire amount and the period of agreement had
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
3/12

expired. Thereafter, the mother of the Informant, namely, Meena

Devi executed a deed of conveyance in respect of plots of land,

bearing Plot No. 2296, corresponding to Khata No. 26 and Plot

No. 2299, corresponding to Khata No. 28, measuring about 7

khatas in favour of the wife of the present Petitioner at a

consideration price of Rs. 96 Lakhs. Prior to the sale, the

Petitioner was duly informed about the agreement with the said

Arun Kumar executed by Ramanand Rai but he had chosen to

purchase the said land. On 27th February, 2023, the Petitioner

called both the Informant and Arun Kumar @ Munshi @

Mukhiya at his residence. The Informant, accordingly, reached

the house of the Petitioner. Then the Petitioner allegedly told the

Informant to return entire money and he wished not to transfer

his land, sold to his wife to which Arun Kumar @ Munshi @

Mukhiya also agreed. It is also alleged that the Petitioner

threatened and intimidated the Informant, taking the mother and

brother of the Informant hostage and sent the Informant to bring

Rs. 60. 50 Lakhs from village Arap. The said money was duly

handed over to him. The Informant was further threatened of

being killed by the Petitioner. Upon being asked for receipt of

payment Rs. 60. 50 Lakhs, the Petitioner also threatened the

Informant saying the Informant that if he reveals anything to
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
4/12

third person, he will face dire consequences. The incident took

place in presence of some witnesses. It is also alleged that the

Informant told Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya that he

should take back the consideration amount of the agreement,

upon which Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya told the

Informant to hand over the entire money to Subhash Prasad

Yadav. The FIR further discloses that Arun Kumar @ Munshi @

Mukhiya brought another Arun Kumar, Son of Satyadev Singh

of Sikandarpur within Police Station Bihta and claimed to have

been sent by Subhash Prasad Yadav, who also asked the

Informant to transfer Rs. 30 Lakhs into the account of Arun

Kumar. The informant was persuaded by Arun Kumar of

Sikandarpur to sign a document acknowledging receipt of Rs. 1

crore, and then only Arun Kumar of Sikandarpur would get Rs.

60. 50 Lakhs deposited in the account of Arun Kumar @

Munshi @ Mukhiya. The informant due to fear put his signature

on a stamp paper. Thereafter, Arun Kumar @ Munshi @

Mukhiya forcibly entered into the informant’s house, demanded

money and threatened to kill the Informant and his family. The

informant immediately called police, upon which Arun Kumar

@ Munshi @ Mukhiya was arrested and brought to Neura

Police Station on 16th of August, 2022, but no FIR was
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
5/12

registered. On 6th of June, 2022, the Informant met the Chief

Minister and submitted an application, after which, the Chief

Minister of the State of Bihar directed the District Magistrate,

Patna to inquire into the matter. The Informant also submitted

few audio and video recordings, but despite giving all such

evidences, the Police did not file any FIR against the Petitioner

as well as Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya and others. Only

on 4th of May, 2022, the Informant had a meeting with the

District Magistrate, Patna and he asked him to meet the Senior

Superintendent of Police. Only then, his FIR was accepted

against former Sarpanch, Pankaj Singh, Arjun Rai, Arun Kumar

@ Munshi @ Mukhiya, Renu Devi, Subhas Prashad Yadav and

Randhir Yadav.

3. The Petitioner also submitted that previously he

was made accused in respect of the following cases:-

(i) Rupaspur P. S. Case No.
300 of 2023, registered under Sections
341, 323, 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.

(ii) Shastri Nagar P. S. Case
No. 458 of 2009, registered under
Sections 447, 341, 342, 504, 511 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 26
of the Arms Act, 1959.

(iii) Complaint Case No. 2267
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
6/12

of 2012, registered under Sections 342,
323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) Mir Ganj P. S. Case No.
175 of 2012, registered under Sections
341, 323, 354, 504 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.

4. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that

from bare perusal of the FIR, It would appear that the said FIR

is a piece of mischief registered against several persons

including the present Petitioner, his wife and son at the behest of

the Informant who himself is guilty of committing the fraud

with regard to property in question. It is also stated that the

transaction relating to sale of land was executed on 26th of

February, 2021. It is alleged by the Informant that on 27th

February, 2021, the Petitioner had kept the mother and brother

of the Informant in hostage, but on that date, the mother and the

brother of the Petitioner were traveling to Ahmedabad by a

Spice Jet flight. Therefore, all such allegations are false and

concocted to the knowledge of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has

also sent a notice to the Informant of defamation on 27th May

2022.

5. On the above facts, it is pleaded by the Petitioner

that the FIR in question contains false and frivolous stories

against the Petitioner relating to transaction in respect of sale of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
7/12

a piece of land, which was executed on 26th February, 2021.

6. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner attacks

the veracity of Bhita P.S. Case No. 425 of 2023, dated 4th of

May 2023, on the ground of inordinate delay. In support of his

contention, he refers to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma and Ors. vs. State

of Chhattisgarh Anr., reported in (2016) 9 SCC 1.

7. What happened in the above-mentioned reported

decision is that a bride committed suicide by hanging her in

matrimonial home within five months of marriage. Inquiry was

conducted by police under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, upon receipt of information regarding death offense.

No offense was found to have been committed. The report of

inquiry under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C was forwarded to the

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which was accepted and the case

was finally closed. After about five years, on the basis of

anonymous letter received by the brother of the deceased,

wherein it was stated that the death of his sister was a planned

murder, the father of the deceased registered FIR under Sections

304B and 498A of the IPC against the husband and other

matrimonial relations of the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court, while quashing the FIR, held that to invoke inherent
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
8/12

jurisdiction under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court must be

fully satisfied that material produced on record is based on

sound, justifiable and reasonable facts. In the aforesaid report,

allegations made in the FTR are inherently improbable and

evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose

commission of any offense and make out a case against the

appellants. Malicious prosecution was instituted by the brother

of the deceased after a period of five years and that too on the

basis of anonymous letters. There was no accusation against the

appellants before filing of FIR. Allegations are vague and do not

warrant continuation of criminal proceedings against the

appellant.

8. On the above finding, it was held by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court that the High Court failed to apply the test

whether uncontroverted allegations, as made, prima facie,

established the offense. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on due

consideration of entire facts and circumstances quashed the FIR.

9. It is needless to say that for quashing an FIR

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, parameters of

consideration is similar with that of the application under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. If the FRI is found to be maliciously

instituted or on prima facie reading, it does not disclose any
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
9/12

offense against the Petitioner, the constitutional Court, in

exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction can quash the FIR by

issuance of Writ of Certiorari.

10. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner also

refers to another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Mahmood Ali vs. State of U.P. reported in AIRONLINE

2023 SC 602. In this report the Hon’ble Supreme Court was

pleased to discuss the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution

and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when it

comes to the question of quashing of FIR. It is held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court that whenever an accused comes before

the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C. or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution to get FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed

essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly

frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes

a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.

Once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused

with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc.,

then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted

with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
10/12

that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they

disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged

offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to

look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the

purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to

constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous

or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into

many other attending circumstances emerging from the record

of the case, over and above the averments, and, if need be, with

due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.

The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict

itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into

account the overall circumstances leading to

initiation/registration of the case as well as the material

collected in the course of investigation.

11. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that a

deed of sale was executed on 26th of February, 2021 by the

Informant in favour of the wife of the Petitioner. The allegation

against the Informant is that after execution of sale-deed, he put

illegal pressure to the Petitioner to handover the consideration

price saying that he is not willing to purchase the property and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
11/12

he would return the land to the Informant. The Informant

returned the entire consideration money but the Petitioner did

not return the land. It is also not in dispute that the FIR was

registered vide Bihta P.S. Case No. 425 of 2023 on 4th May,

2023, while the registered deed of sale was executed on 26th of

February 2021. If the Informant was threatened, extorted and

forced to pay illegally the consideration of money back to the

Petitioner, he could have taken recourse of Section 156 (3) of

the Cr.P.C. at the earliest when the police refused to accept the

FIR from the Informant. Moreover, on perusal of the entire FIR

closely, it appears to this Court that the dispute is essentially

civil in nature. If the averment of the Informant in the FIR is

accepted to be true, the pith and substance of the FIR is that the

Petitioner induced the Informant to sell out his land at a

consideration price of Rs. 96 lakhs. Subsequently, the Petitioner

took away the said consideration money with the help of others

on condition that he would return the land. But he did not return

the land. The Petitioner is under obligation to return the subject

land in favour of the Informant after taking back the

consideration money.

12. Therefore, the real issue involved between the

parties is as to whether without paying consideration money to
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
12/12

the Informant, can a sale be completed or not. This issue is

essentially civil in nature and this question can only be decided

by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

13. For the reasons stated above, this Court does

not find any ground for rejection of the writ petition.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

15. The criminal proceeding, being Bihta P.S. Case

No. 425 of 2023, dated 4th of May, 2023, is quashed.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
uttam/-skm
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 20/03/2024
Transmission Date 20/03/2024