Patna High Court
Kisto Kumar Singh @ Kristo Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 19 August, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74781 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2019 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria
======================================================
Kisto Kumar Singh @ Kristo Kumar Singh S/o- Late Sant Sharan Singh Ex.
Assistant Manager Cum Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. Forbesganj, P.S.- Forbesganj, Dist.- Araria. Resident OF Mohalla-
Mahesh Nagar, Road No 4, Atal Path, Ps- Patliputra, Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gautam S/o- Sunil Kumar Singh, Proprietor Maheshwari Distributor, R/o-
RBI Lane Ps- Forbesganj Dist- Araria
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-08-2025
Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat,
learned APP for the State and Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P no.2.
2. The present application has been filed for
quashing the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 passed in Cr.
Revision No.19 of 2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Araria, whereby, Cr. Revision preferred by the petitioner against
the order taking cognizance dated 16.12.2021, passed by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74781 of 2024 dt.19-08-2025
2/10
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate V, Araria in
complaint case no.274 of 2019 has been allowed upholding to
the extent of the cognizance taken under section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the
complainant is the owner/proprietor of M/S Maheshwari
Distributor R.B. Lane, Forbesganj and deals with the business of
medicine. He got his medical shop insured by the Oriental
Insurance Company Limited, Branch Forbesganj vide insurance
policy no. 332601/48/2017/91 which was effective from
29.9.2016
to 28.9.2017. On 13.08.2017, Araria District was
faced with flood and the medicines which were stored at the
shop of the Complainant were damaged. The Complainant got
the damage assessed by One Ajay Kumar, Surveyor, who is
accused no.2. The total loss assessed on basis of the price of
medicines was Rs. 11,07,756/- and the actual loss as per the
Surveyor was Rs. 8,51,997/-. It is alleged against the petitioner
that he being the Assistant Manager of the said insurance
company had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 3 lakhs for
allowing the claim of the damage assessed. The case under
Sections 405, 406 read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code was
registered and cognizance was taken on the basis of complaint
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74781 of 2024 dt.19-08-2025
under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
petitioner appreciating the order passed by the learned Principal
District Judge in Cr. Revision No.19 of 2022 submitted that in
absence of ingredients of section 406 of Indian Penal Code, the
learned District Court has found that no case of criminal breach
of trust is made out against the petitioner but at the same time,
he has erred in not considering that in absence of dishonest
inducement to deceive, there cannot be a case of cheating,
inducing or delivering of property to attract the provisions of
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Referring to section 21 of
the Indian Penal Code, he submitted that the petitioner is a
public servant and very intent of cheating from the very
beginning does not arise. He has referred that the petitioner
being the Assistant Manager of the said insurance company, had
jurisdiction to entertain the claim upto Rs.2,50,000/- and in view
of the determination made by the surveyor regarding loss
payable to the complainant amounting to Rs.8,51,997 being
beyond his jurisdiction, he had forwarded the claim of the
complainant to the Divisional Office for net loss payment to the
complainant on 09.02.2018. The said letter has been brought on
record by way of Annexure P/3. In this background, learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74781 of 2024 dt.19-08-2025
counsel submitted that though the learned Principal District
Judge has appreciated the facts of the case in detail but he has
not considered this aspect of the matter and has committed
jurisdictional error to conclude that case under Section 420 is
made out against the petitioner. On these grounds, learned
counsel submitted that the impugned order dated 06.09.2024
requires to be interfered by this Court.
5. Per contra Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P No.2/Complainant has
submitted that the jurisdiction to allow the claim upto Rs.5 lakhs
vests with petitioner, who was the Assistant Manager on the
relevant date and above that amount, the jurisdiction vests with
the Zonal Manager/ Deputy General Manager. The petitioner
demanded a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for clearing the said amount for
payment after the assessment was made by the Surveyor. As the
demand was not fulfilled, the petitioner indulged intentionally to
refer the case regarding payment before the Divisional Manager
vide letter dated 09.02.2018. He further submitted that the
petitioner has committed the criminal act being a public servant
and, as such, the learned Principal District Judge has not erred
in any manner in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel
further submitted that the cognizance was required to be taken
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74781 of 2024 dt.19-08-2025
under the Prevention of Corruption Act by the learned
Magistrate. However, he submitted that due compensation has
been awarded to the complainant in a proceeding before the
learned District Consumer Forum but the petitioner cannot be
absolved from a criminal act committed by him.
6. Heard the parties.
7. It is well settled that the Court should sparingly
exercise its power under Section 482 of the CrPC. In case of
Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. vs Sudha Seetharam & Anr.,
(Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2019 arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl) No.1434 of 2018), wherein the Apex Court held
that a court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if
on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the
ingredients necessary for the offence. The observations are as
under:
"10. Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure saves the inherent power of the High Court to
make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice. In
Indian Oil Corp. v NEPC India Ltd.5, a two judge Bench of
this Court reviewed the precedents on the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 and formulated guiding principles in the
following terms:
"12....
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the
allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged
against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be
examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of
the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74781 of 2024 dt.19-08-2025
analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability
or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is
warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a
complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where
it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the
criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with
mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause
harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however,
be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The
power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to
verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence
alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the
complaint, merely on the 5 (2006) 6 SCC 736 ground that a
few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the
complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so
bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary
for making out the offence.
(v)...
11 The High Court, in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, is required to examine whether the averments in
the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for an
offence alleged under the Penal Code. If the averments
taken on their face do not constitute the ingredients
necessary for the offence, the criminal proceedings may be
quashed under Section 482. A criminal proceeding can be
quashed where the allegations made in the complaint do not
disclose the commission of an offence under the Penal
Code. The complaint must be examined as a whole, without
evaluating the merits of the allegations. Though the law
does not require that the complaint reproduce the legal
ingredients of the offence verbatim, the complaint must
contain the basic facts necessary for making out an offence
under the Penal Code.
12. The first respondent has alleged in the
complaint that the appellants have committed offences
under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 read with Section 34
of the Penal Code. It would thus be necessary to examine
the ingredients of the above offences and whether the
allegations made in the complaint, read on their face,
attract those offences under the Penal Code.
13. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads
thus:
Section 405 - Criminal breach of trust.-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74781 of 2024 dt.19-08-2025
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or
with any dominion over property, dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or
dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of
any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such
trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express
or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of
such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do,
commits "criminal breach of trust."
A careful reading of Section 405 shows that
the ingredients of a criminal breach of trust are as follows:
i) A person should have been entrusted with
property, or entrusted with dominion over property;
ii) That person should dishonestly
misappropriate or convert to their own use that property, or
dishonestly use or dispose of that property or willfully
suffer any other person to do so; and
iii) That such misappropriation, conversion,
use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of
law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has
made, touching the discharge of such trust.
Entrustment is an essential ingredient of the
offence. A person who dishonestly misappropriates property
entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation
imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is
punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code.
15. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads
thus: "Section 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing
deliver of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby
dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the
whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which
is signed or sealed, and which is capable to being
converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." The
ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are
as follows:
i) A person must commit the offence of cheating
under Section 415; and
ii) The person cheated must be dishonestly induced
to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security
or anything signed or sealed and capable of
being converted into valuable security.
Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute
an offence under Section 420.
16. A court exercising its inherent
jurisdiction must examine if on their face, the averments
made in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74781 of 2024 dt.19-08-2025
for the offence."
8. A complaint may also be quashed where it is a
clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala
fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where
the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
9. I have dealt with the facts of the case in above
paragraphs. Now, the question arises, as to whether, the learned
Principal District Judge has committed any error insofar as
holding the petitioner guilty for committing offence under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Principal
District Judge has dealt with the entire aspect of the matter but
at the same time, I find that he has not taken into consideration
the basic fact relating to the jurisdiction of the petitioner, who
was working on the post of Assistant Manager of Oriental
Insurance Company Limited and the chart adduced to the
present application by way of Annexure- P/4, from where I find
that the Assistant Manager in case of fire and salvage disposal
has jurisdiction to allow the claim upto Rs. 2,50,000/-. The
complainant has admitted that Deputy General Manager has
jurisdiction upto Rs.5 lakhs. Considering the admitted position
that the Surveyor has assessed total amount of Rs.8,51,997/-, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74781 of 2024 dt.19-08-2025
petitioner, who was posted as the Assistant Manager lacked the
jurisdiction, had referred the matter to the Divisional Manager
vide letter dated 09.02.2018 for making payment of the
assessed amount by the Surveyor. In view of the admitted
position, the basic ingredient of Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code is lacking.
10. A criminal proceeding can be quashed where
the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the
commission of an offence under the Penal Code. The complaint
must be examined as a whole, without evaluating the merits of
the allegations. Though the law does not require that the
complaint reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence
verbatim, the complaint must contain the basic facts necessary
for making out an offence under the Penal Code. The order
taking cognizance dated 16.12.2021, in view of the discussion
made hereinabove and the law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, is set-aside and quashed. The impugned order dated
06.09.2024 passed by the learned District Court is modified to
the above extent. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding
arising out of Complaint Case No. 274 (C) of 2019 pending in
the Court of A.C.J.M.. V, Araria/ concerned court is also set
aside and quashed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74781 of 2024 dt.19-08-2025
11. Accordingly, the present quashing application
stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.08.2025
Transmission Date NA
