Patna High Court
Aruneshwar KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The order of cognizance dated 11‑02‑2022 is quashed with respect to the petitioner, as he was only an attesting witness and not a participant in the alleged fraud.
Summary
The petitioner, Aruneshwar Kumar, was named in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 406, 465, 420, 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with a disputed land sale. The complainant claimed that the petitioner, who is the brother of the main accused Abhyudeshwar Kumar, colluded in producing a forged nazri naksha and signed an annexure promising return of money. The petitioner contended that he was merely an attesting witness to the sale deed and had no role in the transaction. The High Court examined whether an attesting witness could be held liable for the alleged offences and whether cognizance should have been taken against him. Finding that the petitioner was not a party to the fraud, the Court quashed the order of cognizance against him while leaving the proceedings against the main accused untouched. Consequently, the petition for quashing was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether an attesting witness to a sale deed can be held liable under Sections 406, 465, 420, 506 and 504 of the IPC.
- Whether the Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 465, 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal breach of trust
- forgery
- cheating
- land sale fraud
- quash of cognizance
- attesting witness
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31249 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-759 Year-2021 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE
District- Nawada
======================================================
Aruneshwar Kumar S/o of Late Ram Swarath Prasad Resident of Rajgir, P.O.-
Rajgir, District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Rajiv Kumar Sinha S/o of Late Suresh Kumar Sharma Resident of Mauza
Bhadauni, Panchmukhi Nagar, Near Som Mandir, P.S.- Nawada, District-
Nawada
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nagadeo Choubey, Adv.
Mr.Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Mr.Pankaj Maijoreuor, Adv.
Mr.Vaibhav Narayan, Adv.
For the State : Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP
For the Respondent : Mr.Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 25-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
of the order of cognizance dated 11.01.2022 passed in
Complaint Case No. 759 of 2021, whereby cognizance has been
taken against the petitioner and another under Sections 406,
465, 420, 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code by the Court of
Dr. Kanchan Prabha, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Nawada.
3. OP No. 2 filed complaint petition in the court of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31249 of 2023(3) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
CJM, Nawada, alleging therein that he intended to purchase a
piece of land and contacted the accused persons. He paid the
consideration money and the sale deed of Plot No. 4836,
measuring 11.584 decimals, was executed by co-accused
Abhyudeshwar Kumar. It was later found that the land which
was the subject matter of the sale deed was not situated at the
assured place. The accused persons produced a forged nazri
naksha.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is brother of the main accused and he has
been made an accused in the complaint petition merely because
he is an attesting witness of the sale deed. His further
submission is that the petitioner is not party to the transaction.
The vendor is Abhyudeshwar Kumar and the purchaser is the
complainant. The status of petitioner is merely that of an
attesting witness of the deed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
complainant has submitted that the petitioner has complicity in
the alleged offence. The main accused, Abhyudeshwar Kumar,
and this petitioner both produced the nazri naksha before
execution of the sale deed. He has also submitted that the main
accused, Abhyudeshwar Kumar, assured to return the entire
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31249 of 2023(3) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
money through Annexure-2 (page 27), and the petitioner has
also signed that document.
6. The petitioner is not party to the transaction. He is
merely an attesting witness of the sale deed. The main accused
is his brother Abhyudeshwar Kumar, who sold his land to the
complainant, concealing the actual situation of that land.
7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances, the cognizance order dated 11.02.2022 passed in
Complaint Case No. 759 of 2021 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Nawada is hereby quashed, only in respect
of the present petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition
stands allowed.
9. Needless to say that there shall not be interference
in cognizance order dated 11.02.2022 so far as co-accused
Abhyudeshwar Kumar is concerned.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…