Allowed¶8

Chhunu Jee @ Ram Dayal Prasad v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC9 Jul 2025CR. MISC./21147/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.482 CrPC quashing application; Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 21147 of 2023; decided 09-07-2025 by Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha (oral judgment); cognizance order dated 20.07.2018 by ACJM Darbhanga in Complaint Case No. 248/2016 quashed; prima facie case under Sections 409 & 420 IPC set aside; printing machine dispute; Rs. 3,49,650/- bank draft; grievance held fit for consumer forum; liberty granted to opposite party no. 2; application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing/set aside of the order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2018 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Darbhanga in Complaint Case No. 248/2016, with liberty to opposite party no. 2 to approach the appropriate consumer forum; copy of the judgment to be sent to the concerned trial court forthwith. ¶8

Chhunu Jee @ Ram Dayal Prasad Vs the State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the order taking cognizance under sections 409 and 420 IPC against the petitioner ought to be quashed on the ground that the grievance narrated in the complaint is fit to be raised before the consumer forum rather than pursued as a criminal matter. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

The order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Darbhanga in connection with Complaint Case No. 248/2016 is quashed/set aside.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the opposite party no. 2 to approach the appropriate consumer forum in respect of his grievance.

¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (oral judgment of Chandra Shekhar Jha, J., dated 09-07-2025, NAFR) allowed a quashing application under section 482 CrPC (CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21147 of 2023) against the order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Darbhanga in Complaint Case No. 248/2016, whereby a prima facie case under sections 409 & 420 IPC had been found against the petitioner for issuance of summons. The complaint alleged that opposite party no. 2 deposited Rs. 3,49,650/- by bank draft for installation of a printing machine, which failed within three days, and that refund was refused on 18.12.2015. Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grievance was fit for the consumer forum; counsel for opposite party no. 2 did not dispute this and sought liberty to approach the consumer forum. Considering these submissions, the High Court quashed/set aside the cognizance order with liberty to opposite party no. 2 to approach the appropriate consumer forum, and directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court forthwith.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21147 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2016 Thana- DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE District- Darbhanga

¶3

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

¶4

Chhunu Jee @ Ram Dayal Prasad Son Of Radhe Shyam Resident Of Sanjay Nagar, Road No.10, Near Bigrahpur, P.S. - Jakkanpur, Buddha Colony, Patna

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Arun Kumar Gupta Son Of Shri Ramesh Prasad Proprietor Of M/S Mayukh Enterprises, Resident Of Village - Shastri Chowk, Dighi Road, P.S. - Nagar, District - Darbhanga

¶9

==============	=====	... ... =========================	Opposite Party ==========
Appearance :
For the Petitioner	:	Mr.Y.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr.Adarsh Singh, Advocate
For the State	:	Mr.Jai Narain Thakur. APP
For the O.P. No. 2 ==============	: =====	Mr.Pintu Kumar Patel, Advocate =========================	==========

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶11

Date : 09-07-2025

¶12

Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior coun-

¶13

sel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Pintu Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶14

This application has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the ‘Cr.P.C.’) as to quash the order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in Complaint Case No. 248/2016, whereby learned court found prima fa-

¶15

cie case under section 409 & 420 of the I.P.C. against the peti-

¶16

tioner for issuance of summon.

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21147 of 2023 dt.09-07-2025 2/3

¶18

The prosecution case in brief, speaks that complainant for his business of printing asked the accused/petitioner to supply printing machine. The complainant alleged that for installation of the said machine, the complainant deposited Rs. 3,49,650/- in the account of the accused persons through bank draft. Thereafter, the machines were installed after two months, but only after three days, the machines went out of order. The complainant further alleged that the accused persons including petitioner assured the complainant to give a new machine or return the money within 30 days, but, on 18.12.2015, the accused persons denied to return the said money to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint case.

¶19

It is submitted by Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that from narration of complaint itself, the grievance of the petitioner is fit to be raised before the court of consumer forum. It is submitted that admittedly, the machine in issue was installed, but as some technical issue was noticed, which was not redressed within time or replaced with new one, as alleged, present criminal complaint was lodged. It is submitted that no prima facie case qua offences punishable under section 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, the ‘I.P.C.’) appears to be made out of narration as set out through

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21147 of 2023 dt.09-07-2025 3/3

¶21

complaint petition qua petitioner/accused persons.

¶22

Mr. Pintu Kumar Patel, learned counsel while appear-

¶23

ing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, could not disputed the submissions as advanced by Mr. Verma.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, he seeks liberty to approach

¶25

before the concerned consumer forum.

¶26

Considering the aforesaid, the order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2018 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Darbhanga in connection with Complaint Case No. 248/2016 is hereby quashed/set aside with liberty to the opposite party no. 2 to approach before appropriate consumer forum, as submitted aforesaid.

¶27

Accordingly, this application stands allowed.

¶28

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned

¶29

learned trial court forthwith.

¶30

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶31

Rajeev/-

¶32

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	10.07.2025
Transmission Date	10.07.2025

Chhunu Jee @ Ram Dayal Prasad v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhunu Jee @ Ram Dayal Prasad v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar Jha @Deepak Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Meena Devi @ Meena Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Raj Lakshmi Mishra Vs the State of Bihar

Mukesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar