Surendra Kumar Patel@ Pintu v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC25 Jun 2026CR. MISC./46957/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of cognizance; Complaint Case No. 227 of 2019; Sections 323, 341, 354, 379, 420, 504, 120(B) IPC; civil dispute versus criminal complaint; caveat emptor inapplicable in criminal law; remedy in civil suit; sale of undivided share; will/probate not produced; partition suit by maternal aunt; Rs. 12,18,000/- consideration; East Champaran; Raxaul; Motihari; Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 46957 of 2023; Ansul, J.; order dated 18.01.2020 quashed; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order of cognizance dated 18.01.2020 passed by the learned VI Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Raxaul, Motihari, East Champaran in Complaint Case No. 227 of 2019 (cognizance under Sections 323, 341, 354, 379, 420, 504 and 120(B) IPC), so far as the petitioners are concerned; petition allowed. ¶¶27

Surendra Kumar Patel@ Pintu Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal complaint against the petitioners — founded on a 2012 sale of undivided property allegedly covered by a will for which no probate was produced — is maintainable, or whether the remedy of the complainant lies in a civil suit. +1 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

The complainant was apparently aware that the petitioners were selling joint property and, at the time of execution of the sale deed, never insisted upon the will.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

The doctrine of caveat emptor has no application in criminal law, and the remedy of the complainant lies in a civil suit.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

If the petitioners sold their undivided share and the land sold falls within that share, the complainant has no grievance; a grievance arises only when the land sold exceeds the share of petitioner No. 1 in the undivided property.ratio¶¶24
No criminal case is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case; consequently the order of cognizance dated 18.01.2020 in Complaint Case No. 227 of 2019 is quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Ansul, J., oral judgment dated 25-06-2026) allowed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 46957 of 2023 and quashed the order of cognizance dated 18.01.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class VI, Raxaul, Motihari, East Champaran in Complaint Case No. 227 of 2019, taking cognizance under Sections 323, 341, 354, 379, 420, 504 and 120(B) IPC, so far as the petitioners are concerned. The complaint arose from a 2012 sale deed by which Petitioner No. 1 sold his undivided share to the complainant for Rs. 12,18,000/-, on the representation that the land had come to him under a will of his maternal grand-mother, without production of the will or probate; the maternal aunt of the petitioners later filed a partition suit. Holding the dispute to be essentially civil, the Court observed that the complainant never insisted on the will at the time of execution, that caveat emptor has no application in criminal law, that the complainant's remedy lies in a civil suit, and that no grievance exists unless the land sold exceeds the seller's undivided share; accordingly no criminal case was maintainable.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46957 of 2023

¶2

Arising out of PS. Case No.-227 Year-2019 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Surendra Kumar Patel @ Pintu Son of Late Mahavir Singh @ Mahaveer Patel Resident of Village - Ghasikatra, PS- Tiwaripur, Distt- Gorakhpur UP at Present Village- Bhelahi, PS- Palnwa, Distt- East Champaran

¶5

Draupadi Devi @ Dropati Devi Wife of Late Mahavir Singh @ Mahaveer Patel Resident of Village - Ghasikatra, Ps- Tiwaripur, Distt- Gorakhpur UP At Present Village- Bhelahi, Ps- Palnwa, Distt- East Champaran

¶6

Jeetan Singh @ Jitan Singh Son of Ramagya Singh Resident of Village - Dangipur, Po- Lalpur, Ps- Khorabad, Distt- Gorakhpur, UP

¶7

Sharda Devi @ Sharda Singh Wife of Jeetan Singh @ Jitan Singh Resident of Village - Dangipur, Po- Lalpur, Ps- Khorabad, Distt- Gorakhpur, UP

¶8

... ... Petitioner/s

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Bihar

¶11

Asha Devi Wife of Rajeshwar Prasad Resident of Village - Bhelahi, PsPalnwa, Distt- East Champaran Bihar

¶12

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶13

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

¶14

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dineshwar Pandey, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Atul Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Date : 25-06-2026

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶17

Petitioners seek quashing of the order of cognizance dated 18.01.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st ClassVI, Raxaul, Motihari, East Champaran in Complaint Case No. 227

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46957 of 2023 dt.25-06-2026 2/3

¶19

of 2019 by which he has taken cognizance under Sections 323, 341, 354, 379, 420, 504 and 120(B) of IPC.

¶20

The claim of the complainant is that he paid Rs. 12,18,000/- to the Petitioner No. 1 who agreed to sell him the land stating that he had been given the same in a will by his maternal grand-mother.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that a deed was executed in 2012 where the Petitioner No. 1 sold his undivided share to the complainant. Maternal aunt of the petitioners filed a partition suit. In 2019, the complainant filed this case with the allegation that the petitioner had executed the sale deed stating that the property has come to him through a will but he never gave the document of will or probate.

¶22

Apparently, the complainant seems to be aware of the fact that the petitioners were selling his joint property and at the time of execution of sale deed he never insisted for the will. Thereafter, when the partition suit was filed he insisted upon the probate. Though the doctrine of caveat emptor has no application in criminal law but the remedy of the complainant lie in a civil suit. Moreover, if the petitioners have sold their undivided share to the complainant and if the same falls within the share of the petitioners, the complainant will have no issue. He will have

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46957 of 2023 dt.25-06-2026 3/3

¶24

grievance only when the land sold to the complainant exceeds the share of petitioner No. 1 in the undivided property.

¶25

In that view of the matter no criminal case is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of cognizance dated 18.01.2020 passed by learned VI Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Raxaul, Motihari, East Champaran in Complaint Case No. 227 of 2019 by which he has taken cognizance under Sections 323, 341, 354, 379, 420, 504 and 120(B) of IPC is quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶26

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.

¶27

(Ansul, J)

¶28

Vikash/-

¶29

AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date Transmission Date

Surendra Kumar Patel@ Pintu v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Patel@ Pintu 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

Kishore Pal Vs The State of Bihar

Nitish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Hasmuddin @ Kaliya @ Md. Hasmuddin @ Md. Hasmudin Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Shankar Dubey Vs The State of Bihar

Rajeev Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sudhir Pandey Vs The State of Bihar