MANISH SINGH @ MANISH KUMAR SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19714 of 2020
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2040 Year-2010 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE
                                                    District- Bhagalpur
                 ======================================================
                 Manish Singh @ Manish Kumar Singh Son Of Bhola Nath Singh Proprietors
                 B.S. Engineers Lakshmi Chamber C-159/210, Narayan Industrial Area,
                 Phase-I, P.S.-Naryana, District-South West Delhi, New Delhi-110028.

                                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
           1.    The State Of Bihar
           2.    Raj Kishore Singh Son Of Late Ram Udgar Singh Owner R.K. Engineering
                 Corporation, Resident Techno Point, Gali, P.S.-Tilka Manjhi, District-
                 Bhagalpur.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
                                               Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
                                               Ms. Rakchika Shekhar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :    Mr. Mohammed Arif
                 For the O.P. No. 2       :    Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

8   29-01-2026                   Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   APP for the State and the learned counsel for the OP No. 2.

                                 2. This application has been filed for quashing the

                   order dated 15.09.2018 filed on behalf of the petitioner under

                   Section 245 of Cr.P.C. for discharge of accused in Complaint

                   Case No. 2040 of 2010 instituted for offence under sections 406,

                   420, 467, 468, 471 and 384 of the I.P.C. on the complaint of

                   Opposite Party No. 2 which was rejected by Learned J.M. 1st

                   Class, Bhagalpur.

                                 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19714 of 2020(8) dt.29-01-2026
                                            2/6




          complainant entered into an agreement with Bihar State Ward

          Board, Patna and vide letter dated 19.04.2007 bearing Letter

          No. 891, was directed to supply 175 H.P.C.F. Diesel Pump sets

          for an amount of Rs. 37,68,760/-. The petitioner was allegedly

          known to the complainant and, upon hearing the same, offered

          to supply the commodities at a 15% profit. Subsequently, a letter

          was issued to him. The petitioner reportedly supplied the

          majority of the commodities but failed to supply items worth

          Rs. 3,00,000/-, due to which the complainant had to meet the

          demands. Later, the petitioner assured the complainant that he

          would pay the profit money and the dues, but he did not do so.

          The complainant then filed the instant case alleging non-

          payment of Rs. 9,70,000/-.

                       4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a

          perusal of the complaint shows that this is a civil dispute arising

          out of the understanding between the petitioner and the

          complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant has

          acknowledged that the petitioner supplied the majority of the

          commodities as agreed, which reflects the petitioner’s bona fide

          intention. The counsel further submits that the complainant is

          trying to give a criminal color to the matter in order to

          exaggerate its seriousness, and is attempting to coerce the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19714 of 2020(8) dt.29-01-2026
                                            3/6




          petitioner into paying money through this criminal case.

                       5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

          submits that a review of the complaint and witness statements

          will show that no offences under Sections 406, 417, and 419 of

          the Indian Penal Code are made out. It is also clear that the

          petitioner and the informant had a business relationship, during

          which the informant supplied construction materials to the

          petitioner for the government’s toilet construction scheme. The

          petitioner submits that the entire case of the prosecution is based

          on false, concocted, and fabricated claims.

                       6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

          submits that even if the allegations made by the informant are

          taken at face value, the ingredients of the offence under Section

          406 IPC are not met in this case. It is, therefore, submitted that

          the criminal proceedings against the petitioner amount to an

          abuse of the process of law, and as such, the proceedings and the

          impugned order cannot be sustained.

                       7. Relying on the supplementary affidavit, the learned

          counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before filing the

          present complaint, which was registered as Complaint Case No.

          2040 of 2010, the petitioner had earlier filed a complaint against

          the informant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19714 of 2020(8) dt.29-01-2026
                                            4/6




          Act, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1733 of 2010

          before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur. He further

          submits that the informant issued two cheques to the petitioner

          for payment: one cheque bearing Cheque No. 025748 dated

          15.05.2010 for Rs. 6,00,000/-, and another cheque bearing

          Cheque No. 025749 dated 22.05.2010 for Rs. 2,48,000/-. After

          receiving the cheques, the petitioner presented them to the bank,

          but they were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. After this,

          the petitioner issued a legal notice to the informant as required

          under the law. When the informant failed to make the payment,

          the petitioner filed the aforementioned case (Complaint Case

          No. 1733 of 2010) under Section 138 of the Negotiable

          Instruments Act along with Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.

                       8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

          submits that in response to the criminal case filed by the

          petitioner, the informant, annoyed by the legal action, filed the

          present complaint, which is based on false and fabricated

          claims. However, the learned court below, without properly

          considering the facts and applying its judicial mind, took

          cognizance of the case and issued summons to the petitioner in a

          routine manner.

                       9. In support of his submission, the learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19714 of 2020(8) dt.29-01-2026
                                            5/6




          for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble

          Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Haryana & Ors v.

          Bhajan Lal & Ors, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and has submitted

          that the present prosecution is a mala-fide one and the same is

          nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.

                       10. Per-contra, the learned APP for the State and the

          learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 have opposed the application

          of the petitioner.

                       11. On careful examination of the materials available

          on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the

          petitioner are mala-fide and the present prosecution has been

          launched only to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner,

          especially in light of the prior criminal case filed by the

          petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

          (Complaint Case No. 1733 of 2010) against the informant.

                       12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

          Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), the application stands

          allowed.

                       13.    Accordingly,        the     impugned   order   dated

          15.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

          Bhagalpur and all the consequential proceedings arising out of
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19714 of 2020(8) dt.29-01-2026
                                                        6/6




                      the Complaint Case No. 2040 of 2010 are hereby quashed.

                                   14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

                      disposed of.



                                                              (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-

U       T