The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR underSections 420, 467, 468 and 120B IPC. The court observed that a quashing petition by one of the witnesses of the sale deed had already been rejected by this Court, leaving no ground for interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.42056 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -46 Year- 2013 Thana -LODIPUR District- BHAGALPUR
====================================================== Manas Kumar Mishra, Son of Dr. Akshoy Kumar Mishra, Resident of Jawaripur, Tilka Manjhi, P.S. Tilka Manjhi, District Bhagalpur
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajni Kant Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER
5 07-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR of Lodipur P.S. Case No.46 of 2013 lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation in the First Information Report is that the land of orphanage was sold by a fictitious person claiming himself as Secretary of the orphanage and this petitioner in connivance of that executant purchased 13 acres and 26 decimals of land of the orphanage worth of crores only in 5,00,000/-. The case is still at the investigation stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing of the First Information Report on several grounds. First, that the complaint, which was sent by the Magistrate under Section 156(3)
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42056 of 2013 (5) dt.07-07-2017
2 / 3
Cr.P.C. was not affidavited, secondly, there is no averment in the complaint that earlier complainant approached the police station and on denial to register the First Information Report, complaint was filed. It is further submitted that the land was purchased by the company of which the petitioner is the Managing Director and consideration money was also paid to the orphanage so no offence was committed by the petitioner, therefore, the investigation against him is not required to be done so First Information Report should be quashed. It is also submitted that the informant has already filed a suit for setting aside the sale deed.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 submits that this petitioner is the beneficiary of this conspiracy. The purchased land of orphanage by a person having no right to execute the sale deed and worth crores of rupees of land was purchased in connivance with another accused merely in Rs.5,00,000/-. He further submits that quashing petition of a witness to the sale deed, namely, Md. Irfan has already been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.04.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No.49084 of 2013. He had also come for quashing the prosecution of Lodipur P.S. Case No.46 of 2013, moreover this petitioner is a purchaser.
Since the quashing petition of one of the witnesses of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42056 of 2013 (5) dt.07-07-2017
3 / 3
the sale deed by which the petitioner claimed to have purchased the land was earlier dismissed by this Court, so the case of the petitioner having no ground for interference at this stage is dismissed.
The quashing petition stands dismissed.
(Arun Kumar, J.)
S.Kumar/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal proceeding against a witness in a sales dispute can be quashed when their prior quashing petition was already dismissed by this Court.
Manas Kumar Mishra
The State of Bihar
Md. Sayeed Ahmad
Arun Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
