Allowed¶40

Baidy Nath Sharma and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC4 Feb 2025CR. MISC./23012/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing; discharge application rejected by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Patna on 09.02.2016 in Complaint Case No. 773(C) of 2011; no prima facie offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust; criminal complaint held to be attempt to settle civil disputes of non-mutation and demarcation of land purchased from Ganesh Dutt Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited; abuse of process of court; petitioners discharged; related writ petition CWJC No. 7431 of 2010 (possession since 1992); Bench: Shailendra Singh, J; decided 04-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned discharge-rejection order set aside; petitioners discharged from all allegations and alleged offences; both petitions allowed (Cr. Misc. No. 23012 of 2016 dismissed as infructuous in respect of deceased petitioner Baidya Nath Sharma). ¶40

Baidy Nath Sharma and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether, taking the allegations of O.P. No. 2 (complainant) in Complaint Case No. 773(C) of 2011 as true, any offence — in particular cheating or criminal breach of trust — is made out against the petitioners, given that the grievance relates to non-mutation and demarcation of admittedly purchased land (civil issues), such that the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process warranting quashing of the discharge-rejection order under section 482 CrPC.

¶34

Court's answer

On the allegations in the complaint, neither an offence of cheating nor an offence of criminal breach of trust attracts even prima facie against the petitioners; the complainant has tried to settle his civil issues (non-mutation and demarcation of admittedly purchased land) by filing a criminal complaint, which is not permissible in the eye of law; there is no even prima facie material to frame charges, and subjecting the petitioners to trial would be a complete abuse of the process of court.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 09.02.2016 is set aside; the petitioners are discharged from all the allegations as well as alleged offences; and both criminal miscellaneous petitions stand allowed.

¶40

Key takeaways

Cr. Misc. No. 23012 of 2016 stands dismissed in respect of petitioner Baidya Nath Sharma on account of the petition becoming infructuous (his death), to the extent of said petitioner.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 23012 and 17147 of 2016 (decided 04-02-2025, oral order by Justice Shailendra Singh): Both petitions, filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sought quashing of the order dated 09.02.2016 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna rejecting the petitioners' prayer for discharge in Complaint Case No. 773(C) of 2011 (arising out of PS Case No. 773 of 2011, Patna). The complainant (O.P. No. 2) had purchased land from Ganesh Dutt Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited and his grievances centred on non-mutation and non-demarcation of that land; he had earlier filed CWJC No. 7431 of 2010 on mutation, fairly admitting possession since 1992. Holding that neither cheating nor criminal breach of trust was attracted even prima facie, that the criminal complaint was an impermissible attempt to settle purely civil issues, that no prima facie material existed to frame charges, and that trial would be a complete abuse of the process of court, the Court set aside the impugned order, discharged the petitioners from all allegations and alleged offences, and allowed both petitions. Cr. Misc. No. 23012 of 2016 was dismissed as infructuous in respect of petitioner Baidya Nath Sharma, who had died.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23012 of 2016

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-773 Year-2011 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna

¶3

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

¶4

Baidy Nath Sharma, S/o - Late Jag Narayan Singh, resident of Village - Nima, P.S. - Dhanarua, District - Patna.

¶5

Awadh Kishore Prasad Singh, S/o - Late Kamlesh Pati Singh, resident of village - Bhalua, P.S. - Barheriya, District - Siwan.

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Bihar

¶9

Shyam Kishore Singh, Son of Late Ranglal Singh Resident of Village - Kurauni, P.O. - Katari, P.S. - Korma, District - Shekhpura at present resident of Anand Vihar Dakshini, R.M.S. Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S. - Kankarbagh, District - Patna.

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

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

¶12

with

¶13

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 17147 of 2016

¶14

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-773 Year-2011 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna

¶15

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

¶16

Bijay Krishna Sharma, S/o- Late Jag Narayan Singh, 2. Praveen Chandra, S/o – Vijay Krishna Sharma, Both 1 and 2 are resident of Boring Road, Pani Tanki, Quarter No. 2, P.S. -Sri. Krishnapuri, Dist. Patna

¶17

Bijli Singh, S/o- Ramji Singh, Resident of Bank Mains Colony, House No. A/4, Chitragupta Nagar, P.S. - Patrakar Nagar (Kankarbagh), Dist- Patna.

¶18

Rama Kant Singh, S/o – Parshuram Singh, Resident of Sri Rambali Mandal Chhoti Pahari, P.S. - Agamkuan, Dist.- Patna.

¶19

... ... Petitioner/s

¶20

Versus

¶21

The State of Bihar 2. Shyam Kishore Singh, S/o – Late Ranglal Singh, Resident of villageKurauni, P.O- Katari, P.S.- Korma, Dist.- Shekhpura at present resident of Anand Vihar Dakshini, R.M.S. Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S. -Kankarbagh, Dist- Patna

¶22

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23012 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Lal, APP

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23012 of 2016(17) dt.04-02-2025 2/5

¶24

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 17147 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M. Dayal, APP ======================================================

¶25

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶26

17 04-02-2025

¶27

Heard Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel

¶28

appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Bharat Lal and Mr. M. Dayal, learned APPs appearing for the State.

¶29

2. Both the criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st class, Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No. 773(C) of 2011, whereby and whereunder the petitioners’ prayer for discharge has been rejected.

¶30

3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner, namely, Baidy Nath Sharma in criminal miscellaneous No. 23012 of 2016 has died, so, the instant petition has become infructuous in respect of him, so, he wants to withdraw this petition to the extent of said petitioner.

¶31

4. Having considered the aforesaid submission, the instant petition, Cr. Misc. No. 23012 of 2016, stands dismissed in respect of petitioner Baidya Nath Sharma on account of the petition becoming infructuous to the extent of said petitioner.

¶32

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if

¶33

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23012 of 2016(17) dt.04-02-2025 3/5

¶34

all the allegations levelled by O.P. No. 2, who is complainant before the trial court, in Complaint Case No. 773(C) of 2011 are taken to be true, no offence as alleged is make out against all the petitioners as the main grievances raised by the O.P. No. 2 in his complaint relates to non-mutation of the purchased land as well as demarcation of it and as per his case, the O.P. No. 2 purchased the land in question from Ganesh Dutt Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited and at that time, the complainant was one of the members and in this regard, Annexure- ‘2’ showing the society’s proceeding is relevant and further, the O.P. No. 2 filed a case bearing CWJC No. 7431 of 2010 raising the issue of mutation but fairly accepted that he had got possession over the purchased land and had been keeping the possession since 1992 and in this regard, paragraph No. ‘6’ of the petition of the said case is relevant and its copy has been filed with this petition as Annexure- ‘3’. It is further submitted that the O.P. No. 2 earlier appeared in this matter through his respective counsel who is no more and thereafter, the notices were again sent to him but despite the notices having been validly served upon him, he has chosen not to appear in this matter. He further submits that in the guise of criminal complaint, the O.P. No. 2 has tried to settle his civil issues relating to the non-mutation and demarcation of

¶35

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23012 of 2016(17) dt.04-02-2025 4/5

¶36

the land which has been admittedly purchased by him.

¶37

6. Though, learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners but fairly accepted that in view of the averments made by the O.P. No. 2 in his complaint, the main issues raised by him relate to non-mutation and nondemarcation of the land purchased by him from the concerned society.

¶38

7. Heard both the sides and perused the order impugned. The petitioners made a prayer before the trial court for discharging them from the alleged offences and while dismissing their petitions, learned trial court observed that there were sufficient materials to frame the charges upon them. But from the allegations levelled by the O.P. No. 2 in his complaint as discussed above, neither an offence of cheating nor an offence of criminal breach of trust attracts even prima facie in this matter against the petitioners and the O.P. No. 2 has tried to settle his civil issues against the petitioners by filing a criminal complaint which is not permissible in the eye of law and there is no even prima facie material to frame the charges for the alleged offences upon the petitioners and subjecting the petitioners to trial for the alleged offences will be completely abuse of the process of court. Considering these aspects, the order impugned

¶39

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23012 of 2016(17) dt.04-02-2025 5/5

¶40

is hereby set aside and the petitioners are discharged from all the allegations as well as alleged offences and the instant petitions stand allowed.

¶41

(Shailendra Singh, J)

¶42

annu/-

¶43

U T

Baidy Nath Sharma and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baidy Nath Sharma and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

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

Ramesh Yadav @ Chhote Sarkar Vs The State of Bihar

Babita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Nasima Khatoon @ Nasima Khaoon Vs The State of Bihar

Shushil Kumar @ Shushil Kumar Paswan Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Shila Chandra Kumar @ Shil Chandra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Vijayendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar