Allowed¶33

Dr. Sheela Sharma and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC1 Aug 2025CR. MISC./6941/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court Criminal Miscellaneous No.6941 of 2016 (decided 01-08-2025, Satyavrat Verma, J.): quashing of cognizance order under Sections 448, 380, 506, 34 IPC where police had filed final form exonerating accused; FIR under Sections 379, 424, 427, 440, 452-456, 120B, 34 IPC held to be civil dispute between sisters over property gifted by registered gift deed dated 27.07.1982 with mutation and possession; title suit pending; criminal colour to civil dispute; cognizance order set aside; informant died, heirs substituted; personal appearance dispensed with.

What did the court decide?

Quashing application allowed; cognizance order dated 10.11.2015 set aside; personal appearance of petitioner no. 3 dispensed with. ¶33

Dr. Sheela Sharma and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing application allowed; cognizance order dated 10.11.2015 set aside; personal appearance of petitioner no. 3 dispensed with.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 10.11.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 207 of 2015, GR No. 2620 of 2015, taking cognizance against the petitioners, should be quashed. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The order dated 10.11.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna taking cognizance under Sections 448, 380, 506 and 34 IPC against the petitioners is set aside.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The dispute involved in the quashing application is completely civil in nature.

¶32

Key takeaways

In the nature of the allegations made in the FIR, prima facie no criminal offence is made out.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Satyavrat Verma, J.) allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous quashing application and set aside the order dated 10.11.2015 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 207 of 2015 (GR No. 2620 of 2015), whereby cognizance had been taken against the petitioners under Sections 448, 380, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code despite a police Final Form No. 250 of 2015 dated 16.08.2015 exonerating them. The FIR, lodged by Smt. Prabha Sharma (who died during pendency; her legal heirs substituted as opposite parties), had alleged property-grabbing by her own sister Dr. Sheela Sharma, the latter's two sons, and a builder under Sections 379, 424, 427, 440, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 120B and 34 IPC. The Court held, on counsel's unrebutted submissions, that the dispute was between sisters on account of a registered gift deed dated 27.07.1982 executed by the maternal grandmother in favour of petitioner nos. 2 and 3, pursuant to which the lands stood mutated and the petitioners were in possession, with Title Suit No. 1957 of 2014 pending between the parties. Concluding that the dispute was completely civil in nature and that, prima facie, no criminal offence was made out on the allegations, the Court set aside the cognizance order, allowed the application, and dispensed with the personal appearance of petitioner no. 3.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6941 of 2016

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2015 Thana- KOTWALI District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Dr. Sheela Sharma Wife of Dr. Janakdeo Prasad Sinha

¶5

Dr. Rahul Janak Sinha @ Rahul Kumar

¶6

Dr. Shantanu Sinha @ Shantanu Kumar Both sons of Dr. Janakdeo Prasad Sinha All residents of House No. 0/83, Doctors Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S.Kankarbagh in the town and District- of Patna

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Bihar

¶10

Amitabh Kumar, IRS (Customs and Indirect Taxes) Office Address Joint Secretary At Deptt. of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Vanijya Bhawan 347, New Delhi 110011

¶11

Mala Pandey, NA R/o Kendriya Vihar, Flat No. 242, 4th Floor Suvidha Apartments, Plot 10, Sector 56, Gurugram, Harayana

¶12

Meeta Mohini, NA R/o House No. 7, Kitab Bhawan Path, North Srikrishna Puri, P.S.- Srikrishna Puri, Distt.- Patna

¶13

Durgesh Nandini NA R/o 4453 Brookes Walk, Tucker, GA 30084, USA

¶14

Anupam Shrihari NA R/o House No 248, Sector 31, Block A, Noida 201301

¶15

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K.Chaurasia, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

Date : 01-08-2025

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

¶20

The petitioner no. 3, in compliance of the order dated 25.07.2025, is present in the Court.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the instant quashing application has been filed for

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6941 of 2016 dt.01-08-2025 2/5

¶23

quashing the order dated 10.11.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 207 of 2015, GR No. 2620 of 2015 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 448, 380, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the informant of the case, during pendency of the quashing application, died, as such, her legal heirs have been substituted. It is next submitted that original informant, namely, Smt. Prabha Sharma was own sister of Dr. Sheela Sharma who is petitioner no. 1 in the instant quashing application and petitioners no. 2 and 3 are sons of petitioner no. 1. It is also submitted that informant instituted the aforesaid FIR with an allegation that Dr. Sheela Sharma along with her two sons, namely, Dr. Rahul Janak Sinha @ Rahul Kumar and Dr. Shantanu Sinha @ Shantanu Kumar and the builder, namely, Sushil Kumar Pansari, Director Jeevanshree Infrastructure Private Limited, have committed overt criminal acts for which they are liable to be punished under Sections 379, 424, 427, 440, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the background of her active resistance to the attempts of the aforementioned persons to grab her property and the deliberate inaction of the police hierarchy, she apprehends serious threat to her life and that of her family.

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6941 of 2016 dt.01-08-2025 3/5

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the same does not even remotely suggest that informant was own sister of the petitioner no. 1, rather an impression was created that criminals are trying to grab the property of the informant. It is next submitted that the police, after threadbare investigation, came to a considered conclusion that petitioners are innocent and, thus, submitted Final Form No. 250 of 2015 dated 16.08.2015 exonerating the petitioners of the allegation but then the learned trial court differing with the police report took cognizance under the aforementioned sections. Learned counsel also submits that it is pertinent to submit here that a title suit being Title Suit No. 1957 of 2014 has been instituted which is pending adjudication before the learned civil court in which plaintiff was the original informant who now stands substituted in the title suit also and the defendants were the petitioners herein apart from other sisters of the original informant. It is submitted that the property, in dispute, in the aforesaid title suit, was gifted to petitioner nos. 2 and 3 by their maternal grandmother by a registered gift deed dated 27.07.1982. It is further submitted that based on the gift deed, the lands were also mutated in the name of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and they were in possession of the property when the instant dispute arose. It is fairly submitted that the dispute is purely civil to which a criminal colour

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6941 of 2016 dt.01-08-2025 4/5

¶28

has been given. It is next submitted that petitioners had entered into a registered development agreement with a builder, namely, Sushil Kumar Pansari and, as such, the builder also came to be implicated in the instant case with general, omnibus and vague allegations. It is also submitted that the police, after a threadbare investigation, came to a considered conclusion that petitioners are innocent and no criminal offence is made out in the nature of allegation as alleged in the FIR, but then the learned trial court differing with the police report without passing a reasoned order took cognizance in a mechanical manner. It is further submitted that if the title suit is decided in favour of the informant in that event the informant will get her share but if the title suit is decided in favour of the petitioners then the same would definitely cast an aspersion on the allegations as alleged in the FIR. It is next submitted that in the nature of allegations as alleged in the FIR, prima facie , none of the section of which cognizance has been taken is made out.

¶29

Learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the quashing application but then the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant is not in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that informant and petitioner no. 1 were own sisters and the dispute in the instant case is between the sisters on account of a gift deed executed by the mother

¶30

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6941 of 2016 dt.01-08-2025 5/5

¶31

of the petitioner no. 1 and the maternal grandmother of the substituted informant in favour of the petitioners no. 2 and 3 i.e. sons of petitioner no. 1 for which a title suit is pending adjudication.

¶32

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court comes to a considered conclusion that the dispute involved in the instant quashing application is completely civil in nature and in the nature of allegation as alleged, prima facie , no criminal offence is made out, as such, the order dated 10.11.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 207 of 2015, GR No. 2620 of 2015, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 448, 380, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, is hereby set aside.

¶33

Accordingly, the instant quashing application is allowed.

¶34

The personal appearance of the petitioner no. 3 is dispensed with.

¶35

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶36

Kundan/-

¶37

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	01.08.2025
Transmission Date	01.08.2025

Dr. Sheela Sharma and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sheela Sharma and Ors. 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

Priyanka Vs The State of Bihar

Abul Khair Vs The State of Bihar

Pramesh Kumar Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Raju Sharma @ Raju Kumar Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Satyendra Prasad Singh @ Satyendra Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Bhaskar Jha @ Anku @ Bidhayak Vs The State of Bihar