Quashing petition against cognizance for Sections 406/420 IPC in a land sale dispute. Court found the matter civil, with a pending title suit, mere breach of promise without initial dishonest intent; quashed the cognizance order.
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.45782 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-906 Year-2021 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas
======================================================
Hafiz Ansari S/O Late Nazir Ansari R/O Village- Naua, P.S- Dinara, Distt.Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
. .. ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
4 22-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45782 of 2023(4) dt.22-04-2024 2/5
mutation was also done. It is further alleged by complainant that remaining 30.5 decimal land on a consideration money of Rs. 5000/- was also given by petitioner to the complainant for five years for cultivation purpose. It is next alleged that after negotiation, the petitioner agreed to transfer the said land to complainant at the consideration money of Rs. 14,000/-, whereupon the complainant paid rest money i.e. Rs. 9000/- to the petitioner as also Rs. 2000/- for mutation of the said land, but in the meantime, the petitioner got his name mutated of the aforesaid land. It is lastly alleged by the complainant that when he requested the petitioner to get the mutation of land in question in his favour, the petitioner became annoyed and assaulted him with fists & slaps and also snatched Rs. 2600/from complainant’s pocket and thereafter, this complaint petition has been filed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45782 of 2023(4) dt.22-04-2024 3/5
petitioner failed to do so and till date, Jamabandi was not created by the petitioner in the name of complainant. From the reading of prosecution case, it is apparent that complainant had entrusted the work to petitioner, for which, petitioner cannot be held guilty, since he is neither the employee of circle office nor any way connected with the circle office and as such, whole complaint case is false and concocted with an intention to mount pressure and harass the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has never taken any money for the purpose of Jamabandi from the complainant. Besides this, the complainant has also lodged a title suit, vide Title Suit No. 812 of 2021 for declaration of title over the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in support of the allegation made in the complaint petition, the complainant has not annexed or brought on record any chit of paper. In the complaint petition, the complainant has not disclosed any date and time or place where the complainant had paid the alleged money to the petitioner and in whose presence. In absence of same, continuation of the proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the Court. He lastly submits that this Court, including the Supreme Court, has repeatedly held that in matters relating to land and money dispute, being purely of civil nature, institution
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45782 of 2023(4) dt.22-04-2024 4/5
of criminal case is an abuse of the process of the Court and as such, same is required to be quashed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45782 of 2023(4) dt.22-04-2024 5/5
Class, Sasaram, Rohtas in Complaint Case No. 906 of 2021 is hereby quashed and the present quashing petition is allowed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.)
anay
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a purely civil land and money dispute can sustain cognizance under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
Whether the cognizance order dated 07.12.2022 should be quashed as an abuse of process.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hafiz Ansari
The State of Bihar
Ajijul Haque Ansari @ Ajijul Ansari
Prabhat Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
