Patna High Court
DEVENDRA KUMAR BYASversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The petitioners cannot be held liable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC as there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant, and the essential ingredients of the offences are not satisfied.
Summary
The petitioners, Devendra Kumar Byas and Deepak Kumar Sah, alleged that they were defrauded by Anuj Kumar Tiwary, who sold them a vehicle that was financed by the petitioners and later failed to pay the instalments, leading to the vehicle’s repossession. The complainant claimed that Tiwary misrepresented the condition of the vehicle and that the petitioners had not repossessed it, seeking criminal liability under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court examined the agreement between the complainant and Tiwary and held that the petitioners had no privity of contract with the complainant; the contractual relationship existed solely between the complainant and Tiwary. Consequently, the elements of criminal breach of trust and cheating were not established against the petitioners. The Court deemed the proceeding an abuse of process and quashed the related criminal case, allowing the petitioners’ application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners can be held liable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC for the alleged fraud committed by a third party.
- Whether the absence of privity of contract between the petitioners and the complainant precludes criminal liability.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Indian Penal Code
- Fraud
- Privity of Contract
- Abuse of Process
- Repossessed Vehicle
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24263 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-423 Year-2021 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna
======================================================
1. DEVENDRA KUMAR BYAS S/O LATE BRIJ MOHAN VYAS Presently
posted as Managing Director, SREI Infrastructure Finance Company
Limited, Havind Office, at Plot No.- 10, Block EP, Sector-5, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata, 700091, West Bengal.
2. DEEPAK KUMAR SAH S/O JAGLAL SAH Resident of C/o Jaglal Sah,
Bhagwanur Ratti, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. RAHUL KUMAR S/O SRI SACHIDANAND SINGH Resident of Village-
Saraiya, P.O. and P.S.- Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chapra).
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Anurag Saurav, Ankesh Bibhu, Abhishek Kr,
Sharda Raje Singh, Mehvish Ahmad, Advocates
For the S t a t e : Mr.Rajiv Nayan
For Opposite Party No 2 : M/s Suresh Pd, Anurag Pandey, Advocates
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2 The allegation is that petitioner No 1 purchased a
vehicle bearing No BR45GA-3284 from one Anuj Kumar Tiwary.
He purchased the same with the knowledge that the vehicle was
financed by petitioner No 1. Petitioner No 2 is the Manager of
Patna Branch of petitioner No 1. The informant claims that
accused No 1 Anuj Kumar Tiwary told him that the vehicle was
not in a good condition and it would require expenditure to bring
the vehicle in good condition. The complainant states that he got
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24263 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
2/3
the vehicle repaired and, thereafter, an agreement was executed.
He paid Rs 2,90,000/- to the complainant. He claims that initially
the installment was to be paid by Anuj Kumar Tiwary but
apparently he did not pay the same. He also states that lock down
intervened due to which he could not give the vehicle on hire. On
06.09.2020, as per the complainant, the vehicle was repossessed
by the Company. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues
that the crux of the allegation is against Anuj Kumar Tiwary who
apparently deceived. He asserts that the Company has not
repossessed the vehicle.
3 Perused the record. It is apparent that an agreement
was entered into between Anuj Kumar Tiwary and the petitioner
and the complainant purchased the vehicle with full knowledge
that it was a vehicle on loan and that he has to pay the installment.
Whatever internal arrangements were made between the
complainant and Anuj Kumar Tiwary is not the concern of the
petitioners herein.
4 Though the petitioners claim that they have not
repossessed the vehicle, this Court is of the view that even if they
have repossessed the vehicle, no case against them is made out on
behalf of the complainant and the ingredients of offence under
Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are clearly not being made out. If
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24263 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
3/3
one enters into an agreement or contract, there is no privity of
contract between the complainant and the petitioners. He has the
privity of contract with Anuj Kumar Tiwary.
5 In such view of the matter the continuation of the
proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court and, as such, the
proceeding in GR No 3809 of 2021 arising out of Gauri Chak PS
Case No 423 of 2021 pending in the Court Judicial Magistrate VI,
Patna is quashed.
6 This application is allowed.
(Ansul, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.04.2026
Transmission Date 27.04.2026
Checking your session…