Patna High Court
Tarkeshwar Chourasia And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Anr on 18 April, 2025
Author: Shailendra Singh
Bench: Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38948 of 2011
======================================================
1. Tarkeshwar Chourasia, S/O Kapildeo Chourasia, R/O Village - Barouni-I, (Dobha
Toli), P.S.- Teghda, Distt. -Begusarai.
2. Pawan Kumar Luharika S/O Late Murlidhar Luharika, R/O Village - Fulwaria II
(Barouni Chowk), P.S. -Fulwaria, Distt. Begusarai.
3. Om Prakash Luharika S/O Late Murlidhar Luharika, R/O Village - Fulwaria II
(Barouni Chowk), P.S. -Fulwaria, Distt. Begusarai.
4. Narayan Kumar Luharika S/O Om Prakash Luharika, R/O Village - Fulwaria II
(Barouni Chowk), P.S. -Fulwaria, Distt. Begusarai.
5. Kiran Devi W/O Om Prakash Luharika R/O Village - Fulwaria II (Barouni Chowk),
P.S. -Fulwaria, Distt. Begusarai.
6. Asha Devi W/O Pawan Kumar Luharika, R/O Village - Fulwaria II (Barouni
Chowk), P.S. -Fulwaria, Distt. Begusarai.
7. Anand Kumar Luharika S/O Om Prakash Luharika R/O Village - Fulwaria II
(Barouni Chowk), P.S. -Fulwaria, Distt. Begusarai.
8. Madhu Devi W/O Anand Kumar Luharika, R/O Village - Fulwaria II (Barouni
Chowk), P.S. -Fulwaria, Distt. Begusarai.
9. Nirja Devi @ Nirja Luharika, W/O Narayan Kumar Luharika, R/O Village -
Fulwaria II (Barouni Chowk), P.S. -Fulwaria, Distt. Begusarai.
10. Mamta Devi @ Mamta Luhariak, W/O Pappu Kumar Luharika R/O Village -
Fulwaria II (Barouni Chowk), P.S. -Fulwaria, Distt. Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bhawani Devi W/O Krishna Nandan Singh, R/O Village- Ramdiri, P.S. Matihani,
Distt. Begusarai.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 18-04-2025
The instant petition has been filed under section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') with a
prayer to quash the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, in Complaint
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38948 of 2011 dt.18-04-2025
Case No. 562(C)/2011, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance of the offences under sections 417 and 323 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal code (in short 'IPC') against the
petitioners and by the same order, the petitioners have been
summoned for the said offences.
2. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners submits that the alleged offences under
sections 417 and 323 read with section 34 of IPC, of which
cognizance has been taken, are not even prima facie attracted
against the petitioners. The allegation made by the O.P. No. 2 in
her complaint with regard to the alleged cheating is completely
vague as there is no details of the particular land which is said to
have been shown by the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 to the
complainant (O.P. No. 2) for the purpose of selling and further,
there is no details of the area of the said land, which was to be
purchased by the O.P. No. 2. It is further submitted that as per the
averments made in the complaint of the O.P. No. 2, a sum of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) is said to have been given by
the O.P. No. 2 to the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 but there is no proof
of payment of said amount and in this regard, averments made in
the complaint by the O.P. No. 2 are completely vague and the
petitioners should not be subjected to trial for the alleged
offences on the basis of such vague allegations and averments
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38948 of 2011 dt.18-04-2025
made by the O.P. No. 2 in her complaint. In fact, there was some
enmity in between an advocate clerk and the petitioners and at
the instance of said advocate clerk, several complaint cases have
been filed against the petitioners and one Complaint Case No.
555(C)/2011 has been filed by one Bacchi Devi, who has been
made as a witness by the O.P. No. 2 in her complaint. It is further
submitted that against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 to 10, there is
no specific allegation in the entire complaint and the alleged
incident of marpit allegedly committed by these petitioners with
the complainant (O.P. No. 2) is not believable as regarding the
said incident, the complaint petition of O.P. No. 2 is completely
vague. It is lastly submitted that the O.P. No. 2 has not appeared
in this matter to oppose this petition, which also shows and
confirms her malafide intention.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Mohammad Sufyan
learned APP appearing for the State submits that the defences
and grounds taken by the petitioners are subject of trial and there
is sufficient prima facie material to attract the alleged offences
and the petitioners have not shown any strong reason on the part
of O.P. No. 2, who is a rustic lady, to file a false complaint
against the petitioners and further, the factum of filing of several
complaints against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and others by
different persons shows their background of cheating the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38948 of 2011 dt.18-04-2025
innocent persons.
4. Heard both the sides and perused the order
impugned and the relevant materials. The O.P. No. 2 filed her
complaint against the petitioners with the allegation that she
wanted to purchase some land and in that course, she met the
petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who showed her a plot and persuaded her
to purchase that plot and thereafter, on 20.02.2011, a sum of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) was given by her to the
petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as an advance amount and then the said
petitioners assured her to transfer the land in her favour within a
month and said her that she should verify the relevant documents
and also inspect the land, which was to be purchased by her
during that one month period and thereafter, when the O.P. No. 2
went over the proposed land, only then she found that the
proposed land did not belong to one Pappu Kumar Luharika.
Here, it is relevant to mention that though the said Pappu Kumar
Luharika was added as an accused in the complaint but against
him, the learned trial court did not take cognizance of the alleged
offences. As per further allegation, after the lapse of said one
month period, the complainant asked the petitioner No. 2 to
transfer the proposed land by executing the deed but the
petitioner No. 2 took an excuse of calling the petitioner No. 1,
namely, Tarkeshwar Chourasia and then the O.P. No. 2 asked him
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38948 of 2011 dt.18-04-2025
to return the advance amount to her but she was assaulted by the
petitioners. Though the complainant (O.P. No. 2) did not give the
specific details of the land which was proposed to be transferred
in her favour and also, in this regard, the averments made in the
complaint are some vague but before the trial court, C.W.-1,
Bacchi Devi, an inquiry witness disclosed the details of the said
land and according to her, the proposed land was one Katha and
the same is situated near the Barauni Gas Factory and according
to this witness, she has also given a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the
petitioners to purchase the land with the O.P. No. 2 and the
consideration amount was fixed as Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs) per katha. The complainant is a rustic lady and at this
stage the petitioners' counsel has not shown any cogent reason on
the part of O.P. No. 2 to file her complaint case against the
petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 with false allegations and admittedly, five
complaint cases, including the complaint case of O.P. No. 2, have
been filed against the petitioner No. 2 and 3, which also goes
against the said petitioners to some extent, though as per the
petitioners' counsel all these complaint cases were filed at the
instance of an advocate clerk but such ground can not be made a
basis for quashing the cognizance of an offence, particularly, in
the offence of cheating and furthermore, the petitioners' counsel
has not shown any connection or relation between the said
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38948 of 2011 dt.18-04-2025
advocate clerk and the O.P. No. 2. There is sufficient prima facie
material to attract the alleged offences against the petitioner No.
2 and 3 but the allegations made in the complaint are not
sufficient even prima facie to attract the alleged offences against
rest petitioners, of which cognizance has also been taken against
them as the specific role of any of them in the alleged offence of
cheating and marpit has not been revealed by the O.P. No. 2 and
in the opinion of this Court, subjecting the petitioner Nos. 1 and
4 to 10 to trial for the alleged offences will be an abuse of the
process of court. Accordingly, the instant petition stands
dismissed to the extent of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and affirms the
cognizance of the alleged offences against them but the
impugned order is hereby set aside to the extent of other
petitioners i.e. petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 to 10.
5. In result, the instant petition stands partly allowed
to the aforesaid extent.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 08.04.2025
Uploading Date 18.04.2025
Transmission Date 18.04.2025
