[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
