The High Court dismissed the criminal revision, holding that the allegations concerning a tractor sale and alleged amount concealment were essentially a civil dispute rather than a criminal case of cheating or forgery.
The criminal revision application was dismissed with no merit found.
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 Revision No.797 of 2014
===========================================================
Jagdish Rai, Son of Shree Chandra Rai, Resident of village- Dadhiya Asadhar, P.S.Angar Ghat, District- Samastipur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP
Mr. Najmul Hoda, Adv.
Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT & ORDER
Date: 07-02-2017
Heard the parties.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.797 of 2014 dt.07-02-2017
2/3
before learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Samastipur, under Section 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) , for their discharge, which was rejected by an order, dated 20.01.2014. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, thereafter, filed a criminal revision application against the said order, dated 20.01.2014, before the learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur, which has been allowed by an order, dated 11.04.2014, passed in Cr. Revision No. 81 of 2014. The said order, dated 11.04.2014, is under challenge in the present criminal revision application.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.797 of 2014 dt.07-02-2017
3/3
paid to him. Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was still remaining to be paid by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. The amount was agreed to be paid in installments. It is also his case that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 did not pay the amount and wrongly incorporated in the saleagreement that the entire amount has been paid, as agreed.
dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Praveen-II/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A |
| UploadingDate | 08.02.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
08.02.2017 |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient evidence exists to proceed against the accused for offences of cheating and forgery or if the dispute is essentially civil.
Whether the learned Sessions Judge erred in allowing the discharge application of the accused.
Whether the Impugned order rejecting the revision application ought to have been set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
case of the prosecutionReferred¶5
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagdish Rai
The State of Bihar
Badiujama Khan
Tanveer Khan
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
