Patna High Court
DILIP KUMAR @ DILIP SAH @ ANTU SAHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court declined to quash the FIR, directing that the petitioners may raise their objections at the charge‑framing stage.
Summary
The petitioners, Dilip Kumar and Rajan, were charged after the complainant Sunil Kumar, a manager of a jewellery firm, alleged that two cheques issued by them bounced due to a closed account. The FIR, registered under Sections 406, 415, 420, 467, 468, 34 of the IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was filed by the complainant. The petitioners moved the High Court seeking quash of the FIR, contending that the complaint was filed beyond the statutory limitation period and that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process; they also argued that the amount in dispute could be settled by compromise and that offences under Sections 406 and 420 are distinct. The State opposed the application, while the complainant’s counsel also opposed the quash. The Court observed that the petitioners could raise their contentions at the charge‑framing stage and declined to grant the relief sought, disposing of the application. Consequently, the FIR remains in force and the criminal trial will proceed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground that the complaint was filed after the statutory limitation period.
- Whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding constitutes an abuse of process of law.
- Whether the offences under Section 406 and Section 420 IPC are distinct for the purpose of the present case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 415, 420, 467, 468
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- criminal breach of trust
- cheque bounce
- statutory limitation period
- quash of FIR
- abuse of process
- IPC
- Negotiable Instruments Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29933 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-726 Year-2022 Thana- KOTWALI District- Patna
======================================================
1. DILIP KUMAR @ DILIP SAH @ ANTU SAH SON OF DEVANDRA SAH
R/O-NAWANAGAR BAZAR, P.S.-BIDUPUR, DISTT.-VAISHALI. AT
PRESENT RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 1302, OM SAI PALACE,
DANAPUR, KHAGAUL ROAD, P.S.-DANAPUR, DISTT.-PATNA
2. RAJAN @ NANKI SON OF MAHESH SAH R/O-BIDUPUR, P.S.-
BIDUPUR, DISTT.-VAISHALI
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. SUNIL KUMAR SON OF OMKAR NARAYAN CHOUDHARY R/O-
HAZIRGANJ, P.S.-CHOWK, DISTT.-PATNA. AT PRESENT WORKING
AS MANAGER IN M/S JALAN'S GEM'S AND JEWELLERY
CREATION, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 301, PANDEY MALL, FRAZER
ROAD, P.S.-KOTWALI, DISTT.-PATNA
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
Mr. Mantu Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. P.N. Sahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Madhukar Anand, Advocate
Mr, Shubham Kr. Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
12 24-02-2026 This application has been filed for quashing of the FIR
bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No. 726 of 2022 dated 13.11.2022 arising
out of Complaint Case No. 8395 of 2022 registered for offences
punishable under Sections 406, 415, 420, 467, 468, 34 of the IPC
read with Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the case is present pending
in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna.
2. Brief facts of this case are that the complainant Mr.
Sunil Kumar is manager in M/s Jalan’s Gem’s and Jewellery
Creation. He sold gems and jewellery to opposite party and opposite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29933 of 2023(12) dt.24-02-2026
2/2
party, in lieu of the consideration money, issued two cheques dated
25.08.2021 and 07.09.2021 but those cheques could not be honoured
because the account was found closed.
3. The complaint petition was sent to the police station
under the provision of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
continuance of the proceeding is an abuse of process of law since the
complaint was filed after statutory limitation period. His further
submission is that the amount claimed by the complainant, is under
controversy and the petitioners are willing to compromise the case. It
has further been submitted that the criminal breach of trust
punishable under Section 406 of the IPC and cheating dishonestly
under Section 420 of the IPC are two different things.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 (complainant) opposed the prayer.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners may raise his points
at the time of framing of charges.
7. With these observation, this application stands disposed
of.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.