Patna High Court
PURAN BHAGATversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The FIR and all consequent criminal proceedings are quashed as the dispute is a pure civil breach of contract and no offence under sections 406, 420, 384 or 34 IPC is made out.
Summary
The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 510 of 2020 registered under IPC sections 406, 420, 384 and 34, alleging that the dispute arose solely from a breach of a sale agreement for land and that the matter could be redressed by a civil suit for specific performance. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners threatened the informant with a pistol and cheated him of Rs. 11,05,500. The petitioners contended that no criminal offence was made out and that the case was a civil contract dispute, making the criminal proceedings an abuse of process. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Murari Lal Gupta v. Gopi Singh, held that even if the allegations are taken at face value, they do not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust under the cited IPC sections. Consequently, the Court found the FIR to be an unwarranted criminal proceeding filed with mala‑fide intent and ordered it quashed. The application for quashing the FIR was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations of threat and non‑execution of a sale deed constitute offences under IPC sections 406, 420, 384 and 34.
- Whether the dispute is a civil matter of breach of contract and thus not cognizable as a criminal offence.
- Whether the FIR and ensuing criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting quashment.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 384, 406, 420
Subjects
- quash FIR
- breach of contract
- civil dispute
- abuse of process
- IPC 406
- IPC 420
- IPC 384
- specific performance
- title suit
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40306 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-510 Year-2020 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa
======================================================
1. PURAN BHAGAT S/o Late Baiddnath Bhagat R/o Masomat Pokhar, North
of Radha Krishna Mandir Road, Ward No. 07, P.S. Saharsa and District -
Saharsa.
2. Ajeet Kumar S/O Sri Puran Bhagat R/o Masomat Pokhar, North of Radha
Krishna Mandir Road, Ward No. 07, P.S. Saharsa and District - Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar
2. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA S/o Late Baleshwar Prasad Gupta R/o
Kapdapatti, Ward No.20, Within Nagar Parishar, P.S. and Dist. - Saharsa.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinkar Kumar
Mr.Ajit Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uday Pratap Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 02-02-2026 Heard the parties including the learned counsel for
the informant.
2. This application has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners for quashing the FIR bearing Saharsa P.S. Case No.
510 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420,
384, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, it has been alleged by
the informant that he entered into an agreement for sale for a
land admeasuring 1.45 Decimal for a consideration of Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40306 of 2021(3) dt.02-02-2026
2/5
11,05,500/-. The informant has paid an advance of Rs. 11,000/-
and the petitioners had signed the said agreement to sale and the
same was done in present of the witness namely Santosh Kumar.
The informant has alleged that on different dates, money was
transferred to the land-lord by way of bank drafts, cheques and
by cash but when the informant requested for execution of sale
deed, the petitioner no. 1 denied the same by saying that his
son / Petitioner No. 2 is sick, and assured that after two months
he will execute the sale deed but the same has not been done by
the petitioners. Thereafter, on 05/01/2020, mediation was done
by the present Ward Member and other persons in which the
petitioners agreed to execute the sale deed as and when
informant wish when the informant asked for executing sale
deed then both petitioners pointing pistol upon him, threatened
him that they don’t know about the fact of payment of money
and they also threatened the informant to kill him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been
implicated in this case as from perusal of the FIR it appears that
present dispute relates to execution of sale deed with respect to
land in question on the basis of agreement between the parties
for which the legal has legal remedy to file a title suit before the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40306 of 2021(3) dt.02-02-2026
3/5
competent civil court for specific performance of contract.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that in view of the fact that matter relates to civil
dispute for execution of sale deed, no offence is made out under
section 406, 420 and 384/34 of the I.P.C. therefore the
prosecution against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of
law.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that in view of the aforesaid fact and circumstances, it is
crystal clear that present prosecution has been filed with
malafide intention in order to harass and humiliate the
petitioners.
7. The learned counsel for the State and the learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2 have opposed the prayer of the
petitioner.
8. I have considered the submissions of the parties and
perused the materials on record.
9. It would be apposite to refer to a judgment of the
Hon’ble Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Murari Lal Gupta Vs. Gopi Singh [(2005) 13 SCC
699], wherein the Hon’ble Court had held as under:-
“…Having taken into consideration all the
materials made available on record by the parties and
after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40306 of 2021(3) dt.02-02-2026
4/5
satisfied that the criminal proceedings initiated by the
respondent against the petitioner are wholly
unwarranted. The complaint is an abuse of the process of
the court and the proceedings are, therefore, liable to be
quashed. Even if all the averments made in the complaint
are taken to be correct, yet the case for prosecution under
Section 420 or Section 406 of the Penal Code is not made
out. The complaint does not make any averment so as to
infer any fraudulent or dishonest inducement having been
made by the petitioner pursuant to which the respondent
parted with the money. It is not the case of the respondent
that the petitioner does not have the property or that the
petitioner was not competent to enter into an agreement
to sell or could not have transferred title in the property
to the respondent. Merely because an agreement to sell
was entered into which agreement the petitioner failed
to honour, it cannot be said that the petitioner has
cheated the respondent. No case for prosecution under
Section 420 or Section 406 IPC is made out even prima
facie. …”
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the present case and taking into consideration the ratio laid
down by the Supreme Court in the decisions quoted herein-
above, in my opinion, it is a case of pure and simple breach of
contract and the dispute is essentially a civil dispute and the
criminal case is, therefore, bad in law. From the perusal of the
records, it appears that the present prosecution has been filed
with mala fide intention only to wreak vengeance.
11. In view of the above, this application is allowed
and accordingly, the FIR bearing Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No.
510 of 2020 and all consequential proceedings arising out of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40306 of 2021(3) dt.02-02-2026
5/5
same, are hereby quashed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U
Checking your session…