[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Krishna Bihari Prasad Sinha And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 6 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Sinha
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5911 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-721 Year-2017 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Krishna Bihari Prasad Sinha, S/o Late Nageshwar Prasad,
2. Manish Priyadarshi S/o Krishna Bihari Prasad Sinha,
Both R/o Plot No.11, Vishwasaraiya Nagar, Bailey Road, P.S.- Rupaspur,
District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Sohab Hussain Chand, S/o Late Ali Hassan Chand, R/o Chand Villa,
Chunbati Kuan, Phulwarisharif, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Ranjan
For the State : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary
For the O. P. No. 2 : NONE
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
C.A.V.
Date : 06-01-2026
The present quashing application has been filed for
quashing the order, dated 31.08.2017, passed, in Complaint Case
No. 721(C) of 2017, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-XII, Patna, by which the learned District Court has
taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections
406/420/467/468
/ 471/387/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against
the petitioners and one Nikhil Priyadarshi.
2. The prosecution case, as per the complaint petition
filed by the complainant Shoaib Hasan Chand, against accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5911 of 2018 dt.06-01-2026
persons, namely, Krishna Bihari Prasad Sinha, Nikhil Priyadarshi,
Manish Priyadarshi, relatives and family members of Krishna
Bihari PrasadSinha, unknown anti-social friends of Nikhil and
Manish Priyadarshi and Anjali Shrivastava, is that the complainant
is the Managing Director of Aaha Planners and Developers Private
Ltd. An unregistered development agreement was executed
between the complainant and accused Nikhil Priyadarshi and
Manish Priyadarshi, upon payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (one
crore) on 13.10.2016, regarding 40 Kathas of land of the accused
persons, situated at Saguna More, Patna. Again, they demanded
Rs. 30,00,000/- from the complainant- Opposite Party No. 2,
which was paid to the accused persons through his cousin. Again
after payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- in the first week of November,
the accused Krishna Bihari Prasad Sinha handed over the
documents of the land, in question. It has been stated that the
complainant spent Rs. 50,00,000/- lakhs for development work
towards the cost of construction of boundary wall at the site.
Afterwards, upon verification, the complainant found the
documents of land, in question, to be forged, fabricated and fake.
3. It has been stated that a total amount of Rs.
2,30,00,000/- have been paid by the complainant to the accused
persons. When the complainant demanded his money back, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5911 of 2018 dt.06-01-2026
friend of Nikhil Priyadarshi, namely, Gaurav, handed him a cheque
of Rs. 450,000/- signed by one Prem Prakash, which was
dishonored. Earlier also, a friend of Nikhil had given Rs.
1,00,000/- and further assured the complainant that he would get
back his money once Nikhil arrives.
4. The complainant further alleged that on 13.03.2017,
friend of Nikhil, along with anti-social elements, took the
complainant to Durga Mandir, where he was surrounded by armed
persons and threatened to kill him and his family members if he
deposed in the rape case or demanded his money back and also
threatened to lodge a false rape case against him. When the
complainant demanded his money again, the accused filed false
case of demand of extortion against the complainant.
5. The complainant, in his statement on solemn
affirmation, states that Nikhil demanded Rs, 50,00,000/- on
25.01.2017, then he states that the demand of Rs. 50,00,000/- was
made on 16 December, to which the complainant paid the amount
after 2-4 days. The complainant got to know about the
involvement of Nikhil, Manish and Krishna Bihari in the rape case
of a minor girl through newspaper, dated 20.12.2016.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order has been passed mechanically without proper
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5911 of 2018 dt.06-01-2026
appreciation of the facts and settled principles of law. The
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners
would result in gross miscarriage of justice and abuse of the
process of the Court as the dispute between the parties purely
arises out of the development agreement, dated 13.10.2016. The
consideration was clearly fixed as 50 percent of the total built-up
area and the agreement neither contains any recital regarding
payment of any cash amount nor there is any acknowledgment of
the accused persons.
7. The complainant, acting with ulterior motive and due
to extraneous considerations, has attempted to convert a purely
civil dispute into a criminal case by making false, improbable and
self-contradictory allegations of cash payments, including Rs.
2,30,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/-, which are improbable and
unbelievable. The complainant has taken inconsistent stand by first
alleging payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- in the first week of November
2017 and thereafter, during enquiry, alleged the said payment to be
made on 16.12.2017. The complainant further alleged that such
payment was made in old currency, which has ceased to be legal
tender after 08.11.2017, thereby rendering the allegation illegal,
improbable and absurd.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5911 of 2018 dt.06-01-2026
8. In any case, the development agreement, dated
13.10.2016, does not mention payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- or any
other amount in cash, completely falsifying the allegation made by
the complainant in the complaint petition.
9. Even if the entire complaint is taken at its face value,
no ingredient of Sections 420 or Section 406 of the Indian Penal
Code is attracted against the accused persons inasmuch as the
accused persons admittedly have the right, title and interest over
the land, in question and they were competent to enter into the
agreement. Any failure to perform contractual obligations or non-
registration of the agreement at a later stage can at best give rise to
a civil dispute and cannot constitute the offence of cheating or
criminal breach of trust.
10. Similarly, no offence under Sections 467, 468 or 471
read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out as
there is no allegation of making, altering or using any forged or
fabricated document and the essential ingredients of forgery, as
defined under Sections 463, 464 and 470 of the Indian Penal Code
are completely absent.
11. The complaint is manifestly mala fide and
vindictive, having been filed solely to exert pressure upon the
accused persons, which is evident from the fact that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5911 of 2018 dt.06-01-2026
complainant has focused more on an unrelated rape case; rather,
the alleged transactions, which clearly demonstrate misuse of the
criminal process to wreak vengeance and that the complaint is
being used as a tool for vested interest to implicate the petitioners
and their family members and coerce them into parting with the
valuable property.
12. Learned Counsel next submits that the order taking
cognizance shows complete non-application of mind as there is no
satisfactory reason recorded by the Magistrate for forming the
opinion that the offences, in question, are made out for the purpose
of issuance of summonses against the accused persons, including
the petitioners. The failure to assign brief reason renders the order
vulnerable, as has been held by the Supreme Court, in the case of
Mehmood Ul Rehman versus Khazir Mohammad Tunda and
Other, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 420.
13. Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on
behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2.
14. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties
concerned and have gone through the materials available on
record.
15. The fact, which emerges is that the development
agreement was allegedly entered into between the petitioners and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5911 of 2018 dt.06-01-2026
the complainant on 13.10.2016. As per the terms of the agreement
entered into between the parties, the main consideration was 50
per cent of built up area as the absolute consideration for the said
agreement. There is no endorsement in the development agreement
rewarding payment of any amount in favour of the petitioners.
Even assuming that the petitioners refused to get the development
agreement registered due to non-payment of extra amount
demanded by the petitioners, the same will give rise to a civil
dispute.
16. From perusal of the complaint, it appears that no
offence, much less offence under Sections 420/467/468 of the
Indian penal Code is made out against the petitioners. To make an
offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary
that there was an intention to cheat right from the inception. There
was no such intention of cheating from the very inception as has
been alleged against the petitioners in the complaint and the order
taking cognizance.
17. In the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and
Others v. The State of Bihar and Another, reported in (2000) 4
SCC 168, the Supreme Court has held that the distinction between
mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It
depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5911 of 2018 dt.06-01-2026
inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but
for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of
contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating
unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the
beginning of the transaction. Therefore, it is the intention which is
the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is
necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at
the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up
the promise subsequently, such a culpable intention right at the
beginning i.e., when he made the promise cannot be presumed.
18. Further, for constituting an offence under Section
467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, the condition precedent is
making a false document.
19. In this regard, the Supreme Court, in paragraphs 13
and 14 of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. The State of
Bihar and Another, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, has held that
the condition precedent for the offences under Sections 467 and
471 of the Indian Penal Code is forgery. The condition precedent
for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record
or part thereof).
20. An analysis of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code
shows that it divides false documents into three categories; firstly,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5911 of 2018 dt.06-01-2026
where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a
document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such
document was made or executed by some other person, or by the
authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he
knows it was not made or executed; secondly, where a person
dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a
document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has
been made or executed by either himself or any other person; and
thirdly, where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any
person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such
person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b)
intoxication; or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the
contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
21. In the entire complaint petition, there is no allegation
that the development agreement was executed claiming to be
someone else or authorized by some one else or that the petitioners
altered or tempered a document.
22. In the development agreement, the petitioners have
given the details of sale deeds, along with the proof of registration
of various sale deeds by virtue of which the petitioners have
claimed the ownership upon the land, having an area of 38.83
kathas. No prima facie evidence has been brought on record by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5911 of 2018 dt.06-01-2026
complainant showing that the title of the land of the petitioners are
forged and fabricated.
23. Upon going through the allegations made in the
complaint petition, the order taking cognizance and the materials
on record, in my opinion, at best, the allegations give rise to civil
dispute but the same has been given the colour of criminal offence.
As such, permitting the prosecution to continue against the
petitioners shall amount to abuse of the process of criminal court.
24. In order to prevent the abuse of the process of court
and to secure the ends of justice, I deem it fit to quash the order
taking cognizance against the petitioners, dated 31.08.2017.
25. Accordingly, the order, dated 31.08.2017, passed in
Complaint Case No. 721(C) of 2017, by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-XII, Patna, is hereby quashed so far as it
relates to the petitioners.
26. In the result, this application is allowed.
27. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 07-11-2025
Uploading Date 06-01-2026
Transmission Date 06-01-2026
