Ravi Prakash Sah @ Pappu Sah vs The State Of Bihar Through The ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2244 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.348 of 2022
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-627 Year-2021 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI District-
                                            Bhagalpur
     ======================================================

Ravi Prakash Sah @ Pappu Sah S/o Late Shaym Sunder Sah R/o village- Jagdishpur, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principle Secretary Home Department, Patel Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna.

2. The Director General of Police, Bihar Patna.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur.

4. The Investigation Officer, (Kotwali) Tilakmanhji Police Station Bhagalpur.

5. Gautam Kumar S/o Abhay Kumar Yadav Resident of Nabab Bagh Colony, P.S.- Tilakmanjhi, Distt.- Bhagalpur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.

                              :     Mr. Devi Das Srivastava, Adv.
     For the State            :     Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Adv.
     For the Res. No.5        :     Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv.
                              :     Mr. Rohit Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10-05-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent

No.5.

In the present writ petition, the matter was

adjourned on 18.04.2023 and 27.04.2023 so that a positive

solution may come out in this case by virtue of talk but

unfortunately it could not take place, therefore, today this Court

is deciding this case on merit. Pleadings are already completed Patna High Court CR. WJC No.348 of 2022 dt.10-05-2023

in this case.

The present Cr. Writ Petition has been filed for

quashing of F.I.R. bearing Kotwali (Tilkamanjhi) P.S. Case No.

627 of 2021 dated 16.09.2021 lodged under Section 406, 420,

504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner and respondent No.5 were entered into an agreement

for sale which is annexed as Annexure-2 dated 15.03.2016 in

Rs.28 lac per bigha. The area of the land was 35 ½ dec., in this

regard Rs.5 lac has been paid as advance through RTGS to the

petitioner by respondent No.5. He further submits that the

agreement is valid for 6+1 months from the date of mutation. He

also submits that petitioner is suffering from cancer and he was

in urgent need of money but when the private respondents has

not provided money to him then he sent legal notice on

05.03.2020 and 16.01.2021 to the respondent No.5 for returning

the advance money. He submits that petitioner is still ready to

return the advance money to respondent No.5. He also submits

that the said agreement is of dated 15.03.2016 and according to

him it was valid up to 16.10.2016 but respondent No.5 has filed

the present criminal case on 16.09.2021 after lapse of about 5

years with allegation that the petitioner has neither provided Patna High Court CR. WJC No.348 of 2022 dt.10-05-2023

mutation paper due to which the registration of land could not

took place and also made allegation that petitioner is selling the

property at the hand of others which is not correct and still land

is with the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that from the

date of agreement, five years lapsed and filing the case after five

years itself indicates that intention of respondent No.5 is not

good. He submits that it is basically a case of specific

performance of contract and under the Specific Relief Act there

is a special provision that when a contract shall not be fulfilled

within the period prescribed, then in that case the parties are free

to exhaust the remedy by way of filing suit under the provisions

of Specif Performance Act and in this view of the matter he

submits that the present case is basically a time barred civil

dispute which the respondent No.5 wants to revive by virtue of

filing present criminal case with such delay.

On the other hand learned counsel for the

respondent No.5 submits that it is true that respondent No.5 has

given Rs.5 lac as advance. It is also true that agreement was

executed on 15.03.2016, but it is false to state that the period of

agreement was lapsed on 15.10.2016, according to him from the

content of the deed, the said period of 6+1 months has to be

counted from the date of mutation and according to him till date Patna High Court CR. WJC No.348 of 2022 dt.10-05-2023

no document for mutation has been prepared. He further submits

that the intention of petitioner was bad since from the

beginning, on no occasion he has intimated about the mutation

and only due to inaction on their part this agreement for sale

could not be acted upon. He also submits that respondent No.5

is ready to act upon the said part of performance mentioned in

the agreement for sale. Learned counsel submits that actually

there was two agreement for sale, respondent No.5 has made

payment of Rs.1.55 crore to the petitioner in the year 2017

about which he has also provided receiving on the first

agreement, therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner that

respondent No.5 is not ready to pay money and extending time

is not correct. He further submits that petitioner in the name of

illness, intentionally extended time again and again, it is due to

this reason such delay has caused and upon understanding later

that the petitioner has committed criminal breach and having

dishonest intention, respondent No.5 has filed the present

criminal case which is sustainable in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in response,

submits that the mutation has already been taken place for the

said land on 23.12.2021, in result, the period for execution of

sale deed ought to be 7 months from the date of mutation order Patna High Court CR. WJC No.348 of 2022 dt.10-05-2023

i.e. up to 23.07.2022. He further submits that the intention of

respondent No.5 is clear by this fact that F.I.R. has already been

filed in the month of September, 2021.

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the

documents there are certain facts which are admitted by both the

parties. Petitioner and Respondent No.5 are well known to each

other, they have entered into agreement on 15.03.2016, this

agreement was valid for 7 months from the date of mutation

which is 23.12.2021, as such, the agreement is valid up to

23.07.2022, F.I.R. has been filed in the months of September,

2021, Rs.5 lac as an advance for the land mentioned in the

Annexure-2 has been paid through RTGS by respondent No.5 in

the account of petitioner which has been accepted by him.

In this background and particularly after going

through the contents of F.I.R., this Court is of the view that the

actual remedy available to the respondent No.5 under law is

filing of specific performance of contract and not to file the

F.I.R. The dispute is absolutely civil in nature and special law

has been made for the same.

In this view of the matter, the F.I.R. bearing

Kotwali (Tilkamanjhi) P.S. Case No. 627 of 2021 dated

16.09.2021 lodged under Section 406, 420, 504, 506 of the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.348 of 2022 dt.10-05-2023

Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed.

After quashing of the F.I.R., this Court is very

cautious about the factual matrix of this case that limitation is

still continuing in favour of respondent No.5 and liberty is

hereby granted to the respondent No.5 that he may sue against

the petitioner in the suit for specific performance of contract

either for agreement for sale or for the purpose of realizing the

money with interest.

With this observation and liberty to the respondent

No.5, the present Cr. Writ Petition stands allowed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Ritik/-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date