Quashed

Gopal Prasad Sah v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC29 Nov 2018CR. MISC./18076/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated regarding an alleged agreement for sale of land. The court held the matter to be a civil dispute over specific performance with no criminality proven, constituting abuse of the court's process.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance taken under Section 420 IPC dated 03-11-2010 by the S.D.J.M. Katihar in C.A. No. 3344 of 2009/Trial No. 2684 of 2010 has been quashed.

Gopal Prasad Sah Vs the State of Bihar and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.18076 of 2011

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Gopal Prasad Sah S/O Late Lelhu Sah Resident Of Mohalla- Binodpur, P.S.Katihar Town, District- Katihar

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar

¶7

Ganesh Sharma S/O Bindeshwari Sharma Resident Of Village- Mirchi Bari, P.S.- Sahayak, District- Katihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma with Mr. L. K. Sharma and Mr. Prem Sankar Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶11

Date : 29-11-2018

¶12

Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel, along with Mr. L. K. Sharma and Mr. Prem Shankar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

Despite valid service of notice on opposite party no. 2, none is present to represent him.

¶14

The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following relief:

¶15

“ That this is an application for quashing

¶16

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18076 of 2011 dt.29-11-2018 2/4

¶17

the order dated 03.11.2010 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Katihar in C.A. No. 3344/2009/Trial No. 2684/2010, whereby and whereunder he took cognizance for the offence under section 420 of the Penal Code by filing a prima facie case against accused petitioner.”

¶18

As per the complaint, the petitioner is alleged to have taken rupees nine lakhs and to have entered into an agreement for sale of piece of land of 43 decimals to the opposite party no. 2 and the remaining rupees three lakhs amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. It is alleged that the opposite party no. 2 had even put fencing on the land in question but the petitioner did not execute the sale deed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is purely a civil dispute as it is with regard to enforcement of a so called agreement for which the opposite party no. 2 has a remedy under the common civil law by filing suit for Specific Performance. Learned counsel further submitted that having realised the folly, opposite party no. 2 has also filed Title Suit No. 82 of 2010 before the Sub-Judge-1, Katihar for Specific Performance against the petitioner and others, which is pending. Learned counsel submitted that from

¶20

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18076 of 2011 dt.29-11-2018 3/4

¶21

the entire compliant, no criminality is borne out and, thus, cognizance under Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code is totally unsustainable and in fact abuse of the process of the Court.

¶22

Learned A.P.P. submitted that in the present case, cognizance has been taken after recording the evidence of the complainant and witnesses. However, he was not in a position to controvert the fact that from the entire complaint case, purely a civil dispute is made out.

¶23

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that a case has been made out for interference. The bare perusal of the entire complaint discloses that it is a case where the opposite party no. 2 is aggrieved by certain alleged non-performance of the terms of the agreement for sale of land. For the same, in the considered opinion of the Court, initiation of criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court. Further, as the opposite party no. 2 has now filed a suit for Specific Performance, law will take its course.

¶24

For the reasons aforesaid, the application succeeds. The cognizance taken against the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code dated 03.11.2010 by the

¶25

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18076 of 2011 dt.29-11-2018 4/4

¶26

S.D.J.M., Katihar in C.A. No. 3344 of 2009/Trial No. 2684 of

¶27

2010 stands quashed.

¶28

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶29

Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U T

Gopal Prasad Sah v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Prasad Sah v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bigan Mistry and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Puja Stone Works and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Modi Vs State of Bihar and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Vadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pramod Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar