Patna High Court
Mayank Tiwari vs The State Of Bihar on 26 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1132 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1965 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Mayank Tiwari, S/O Shri Mahesh Prasad Tiwary Muhalla- 17/8, Gwarighat,
Ward No. 7, Sai Bihar ( Near Railway Crossing Rampur),Ps. Gorakhpur Dist.
Jabalpur (M.P)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ved Prakash Kumar, S/O Arvind Kumar Village- Masandpur, Ps.
Shahjahanpur, Dist. Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Ranjan Pd. Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP
For the Opposite Party No.2: None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
2. The present application has been filed by the petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for quashing the order dated 01.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum-A.M-XVIII, Patna in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1132 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026 2/8 Complaint Case No.1965(c) of 2023 by which cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner.
3. The facts giving rise to the present application is to the effect that the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, on 21.02.2023, stating therein that the petitioner and the co-accused, who are film producers and have a production house in the name and style of D.T.M. Movies, have come in touch with the complainant/opposite party no.2 and offered him to prepare a film, namely, ARAAJAK, and produce the same and for that it was decided between the parties that they will invest 50-50% in the making of the film and after release of the film, they will take their invested money and share 50-50% of the profits between them. It is alleged by the opposite party no.2 that he had invested a total amount of Rs.31,85,000/- out of which he paid Rs.19,52,100/- by bank and the remaining amount was given in cash, but the petitioner and the co-accused persons are not ready to pay their share as per the agreement and in this way the petitioner and other co-accused have committed fraud against him and grabbed his share.
4. Though the complaint was filed for the offences Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1132 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026 3/8 under Sections 34, 120B, 406, 417, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, however, after the solemn affirmation of the complainant, the learned Magistrate took cognizance only for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present complaint is a false and malicious prosecution altogether on account of the fact that the opposite party no.2 initially had filed an application before the Bheraghat Police Station in the district of Jabalpur in the State of Madhya Pradesh for lodging the case, however, the police, after inquiry, did not find the case true, upon which the opposite party no.2 approached the Hon'ble High Court of Jabalpur at Madhya Pradesh.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Jabalpur heard the writ petition vide W.P No.18878 of 2020 and the same was disposed of with direction to the police to lodge the case. However, the police again did not lodge the case, then another writ petition was filed, which was disposed off again, directing the Station House Officer to lodge an FIR, upon which an FIR was ultimately lodged. The Bheraghat Police Station inquired into the matter and came to a conclusion that the demand of the petitioner is premature, as the film has not yet been released and therefore, the claim of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1132 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026 4/8 opposite party no.2 could not be entertained, as the film was not released. The said report of the police has been brought on record by way of Annexure-A3.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the opposite party no.2 saw that his attempts to lodge an FIR at Jabalpur did not work out, he filed the present complaint at Patna with same set of allegations, which is an abuse of the process of law. It has further been submitted that no case under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC is made out in view of the fact that at best the petitioner can be saddled with a case of breach of contract and therefore, no criminal offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the solemn affirmation of the complainant, it would be evident that an agreement was executed at Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra and the petitioner happens to be a resident of Jabalpur in the State of Madhya Pradesh and not a single transaction has been made in the State of Bihar. Therefore, the filing of the complaint in the State of Bihar suffers inherently from jurisdictional error and therefore, not only the complaint but also the consequential orders suffer from illegality and therefore, they are fit to be set aside. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1132 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026 5/8
9. Despite the fact that a counter affidavit has been filed, nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 to represent the opposite party no.2.
10 From perusal of the counter affidavit, it seems that the only contention which has been made is that the opposite party no.2 has submitted the notice copy, reply to the notice copy and agreement copy before this Court and no reply to the averments made in the application, filed by the petitioner, has been given.
11. From perusal of the counter affidavit, an agreement between the parties, legal notice and reply to the legal notice has been brought on record which would go on to show that there was an agreement between the parties about splitting the profits of their film "ARAAJAK" but they did not honor the obligation.
12. From perusal of the legal notice, it would appear that the opposite party no.2 has alleged that the petitioner had borrowed through several installments an amount to the tune of Rs.13,00,000/- and thereafter again borrowed Rs.7,50,000/- in the name of forged contracts of films called "AURA" and "SAUDA", however, the same was never returned by the petitioner. It has been alleged in the legal notice that a total of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1132 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026 6/8 Rs.28,72,000/- rupees is owed by the petitioner to the complainant and did not return the money to the opposite party no.2.
13. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and after perusal of the respective pleadings, it would be evident from the very legal notice which has been brought on record through counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 wherein the allegation against the petitioner which has been levelled by the opposite party no.2 through his learned Advocate is to the effect that:
"since, you failed to honor the terms of the contract, i.e., the specific performance you have committed a breach of contract and my client is entitled to be paid the resulting damages according to Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872."
14. From the perusal of such averments, it is clear that the opposite party no.2 has admitted the fact that the terms of the contract have not been honored and has, therefore, alleged that the petitioner has committed a breach of contract, however, allegations of playing fraud upon the opposite party no.2 has been made, stating therein that the date upon which the said amount would be returned was fraudulently concealed. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1132 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026 7/8
15. From the averments made in the legal notice, it is apparently clear that this case relates to non-performance of contract and therefore, the jurisdiction lies before an appropriate Court for specific performance of contract, however, as it would be apparent from the allegations levelled in the legal notice, a case under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been filed against the petitioner.
16. In the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2024 (10) SCC 690 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot go side by side and especially in the present case, where admittedly the allegations levelled by the opposite party no.2 are of non-performance of contract, no case under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.
17. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the order 01.07.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class- cum- AM-XVIII, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No.1965(c) of 2023 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1132 of 2024 dt.26-02-2026 8/8 Indian Penal Code is not tenable in law and would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and is thus set aside.
18. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J) manoj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 18.02.2026 Uploading Date 27.02.2026 Transmission Date 27.02.2026