Allowed¶31

Dr. Madhurendra Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC16 Jun 2026CR. MISC./85170/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR — Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 373 of 2018, Patna (registered 01.07.2018; Sections 504, 379, 34 IPC) — petition under Section 528 BNSS — allegations of oral agreement to sell premises, earnest money Rs. 5,00,000, renovation payment Rs. 1,50,000, monthly rent Rs. 23,000, breaking of lock, removal of school furniture, snatching of handbag with Rs. 5,000 and cheque book — civil dispute / misuse of criminal process — FIR quashed, application allowed — Praveen Kumar, J — CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85170 of 2025 — decided 16-06-2026 — cases referred: Bhajan Lal; Mitesh Kumar J. Shah; G. Sagar Suri.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR bearing Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 373 of 2018 (Sections 504, 379 and 34 IPC); the application stands allowed. ¶31

Dr. Madhurendra Kumar Sinha Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85170 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-373 Year-2018 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Dr. Madhurendra Kumar Sinha S/o- Birendra Kumar Sinha R/V- Flat No 1605, B Wing, Mantri Serene, Film City Road, Dindoshi, Next To Mantri Park, Goregaon East, PS- Dindoshi, District - Mumbai

¶5

Dr. Anuja M. Sinha W/o- Dr. Madhurendra Kumar Sinha R/V- Flat No 1605, B Wing, Mantri Serene, Film City Road, Dindoshi, Next To Mantri Park, Goregaon East, PS- Dindoshi, District - Mumbai, State - Maharashtra, Pin - 400065

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar

¶9

Poonam Keshri W/o- Smt. Anil Keshri R/o- Flat No. B-603, Saket Plaza, Jamal Road, P.S- Kotwali, District - Patna, Pin - 800001

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Eashita Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, APP ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶14

3 16-06-2026

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶16

APP for the State.

¶17

2. By order dated 08.01.2026, notices were issued to Opposite Party No.2 and even after valid service of notice, Opposite Party No.2 has chosen not to appear and get herself represented through an advocate.

¶18

3. This petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking quashing of Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 373 of 2018, registered on 01.07.2018 under Sections 504, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85170 of 2025(3) dt.16-06-2026 2/6

¶20

4. As per the prosecution, the informant, namely, Poonam Kesari, alleged that she was running an educational institution known as “Poonam Stepping Stone Tutorial Study Centre” from a portion of the residential premises belonging to the petitioner no.1 (Dr. Madhurendra Kumar Sinha), situated at Sinha Mansion, M.P. Sinha Road, Kadamkuan, Patna, after paying Rs. 1,50,000/- towards renovation and agreeing to a monthly rent of Rs. 23,000/-. It is alleged that the petitioner no.1 (Dr. Madhurendra Kumar Sinha) later expressed his intention to sell the property and demanded an earnest money amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which the informant claims to have paid in cash on the understanding that the ownership of the premises would be transferred to her under the applicable norms. It is further alleged that despite repeated requests, the petitioner no.1 did not execute the registration deed. Instead, on a specified day, the petitioners and one Rajesh Kumar allegedly broke open the lock of the ground floor, entered the premises, and removed school furniture, swings, and other items belonging to the institution. It is further alleged that Rajesh Kumar snatched her handbag containing Rs. 5,000/- in cash, along with a cheque book, and fled away. It is further alleged that Rajesh Kumar and his wife abused and threatened her to implicate in a case in the presence

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85170 of 2025(3) dt.16-06-2026 3/6

¶22

of staff members.

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present allegation is false and a serious attempt has been made to falsely implicate the petitioners. It has further been submitted that no date of occurrence has been mentioned in the FIR, making the petitioners victim of circumstances. It has further been submitted that petitioner no.1 (Dr. Madhurendra Kumar Sinha) is the owner of the property and petitioner no.2 (Dr. Anuja M. Sinha) is his wife. It has further been submitted that the dispute as narrated in the FIR revolves around an alleged oral agreement for sale of immovable property, which is a civil dispute and cannot constitute a criminal offence, unless deception at the very inception is pleaded and proved, which is completely absent here. It has further been submitted that the FIR shows that the informant has been repeatedly asking for registration of the premises, which further confirms that the issue pertains to a contractual disagreement over transfer of property rather than any criminal activity. It has further been submitted that suddenly, in order to give criminal colour to a civil dispute, the FIR alleged that the petitioners and one Rajesh Kumar entered the premises, broke open the lock of the ground floor and removed school furniture, without mentioning any

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85170 of 2025(3) dt.16-06-2026 4/6

¶25

specific date, time, witnesses, seizure list, or recovery of the alleged articles. It has further been submitted that the allegation of theft is baseless because the allegations pertains to premises owned by the petitioners’ family and no document has been produced to show that the alleged furniture or articles belonged exclusively to the informant. It has further been submitted that the allegation that Rajesh Kumar and the petitioners’ son took her bag containing Rs, 5,000/- and a cheque book and ran away, the same is inherently unnatural, improbable, and clearly an afterthought, introduced solely to invoke Section 379 IPC. It has further been submitted that no ingredient of cheating, criminal intimidation, misappropriation, house trespass, or theft is made out against the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has further been submitted that the dispute on the face of it is undeniably civil in nature, as it arises out of tenancy, advance money for renovation, and alleged oral agreement to sell, and criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue in such circumstances.

¶26

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal; reported in 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC Page 335 and has submitted that the

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85170 of 2025(3) dt.16-06-2026 5/6

¶28

allegation is levelled with malice, personal vendetta and to spite personal score. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as rendered in Mitesh Kumar J. Shah vs. State of Karnataka; reported in (2021) 15 SCC 595 and has submitted that criminal prosecution is not a remedy for breach of contract, if any, and cannot be a weapon to settle civil scores. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of G. Sagar Suri vs. State of UP; (2000) 2 SCC 636 and has submitted that the criminal proceedings cannot be used as a means of harassment. It has further been submitted that petitioners are doctors by profession and reside in Mumbai (Maharashtra) and in order to grab the property, the informant has misused the provisions of law in falsely implicating the petitioners.

¶29

7. Considering the totality of the materials and evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court having observed that the informant has misused the provisions of law to spite personal score when the petitioner no.1 is the owner of the property in question and petitioner No.2 being wife of petitioner no.1, this Court has no option, but to quash the FIR bearing Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 373 of 2018.

¶30

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85170 of 2025(3) dt.16-06-2026 6/6

¶31

8. This application stands allowed.

¶32

(Praveen Kumar, J)

¶33

shivam/-

¶34

U T

Dr. Madhurendra Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Madhurendra Kumar Sinha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashutosh Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Tetru Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Fiyaj Vs The State of Bihar

Pappu Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Kumar @ Chhote Rajak Vs The State of Bihar

Shivam Choudhary @ Shivam Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Vs The State of Bihar