Patna High Court
VIJAY KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Holding
The order of cognizance is quashed as the allegations do not constitute a criminal offence.
Summary
Vijay Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, co‑owners of ancestral land with Dr. Brijesh Kumar, entered into an agreement to construct a 14‑foot road to the public road. The complainant alleged that the petitioners obstructed the road work and fraudulently induced him to deliver the property, invoking offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust (IPC s.406) and extortion (IPC s.384). The High Court noted that under settled law possession of one co‑sharer is deemed possession of the other, and no criminal mis‑appropriation or extortion was proved. It held that the allegations did not disclose any cognizable offence and the order of cognizance taken by the ACJM was ultra vires. Consequently, the order dated 20 April 2021 was quashed under Cr.P.C. s.482. The petition was allowed and the criminal proceedings were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust and extortion against co‑owners constitute a cognizable offence.
- Whether the order of cognizance taken by the ACJM can be quashed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 384, 406
Subjects
- co‑ownership
- ancestral property
- road construction
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- extortion
- Section 482
- quashing of cognizance
- civil dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33354 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-251 Year-2021 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Vijay Kumar Son Of Late Satyendra Kumar Resident Of Village- Jagat Narayan
Road, Opp. Patliputra Inter High School, Ps- Kadamkuan, Distt- Patna And
Permanent R/O Village Tarwan, Po- Arap, Ps- Naubatpur, Distt- Patna
2. Sanjay Kumar Son Of Late Satyendra Kumar Esident Of Village- Jagat Narayan
Road, Opp. Patliputra Inter High School, Ps- Kadamkuan, Distt- Patna And
Permanent R/O Village Tarwan, Po- Arap, Ps- Naubatpur, Distt- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dr. Brijesh Kumar Son Of Awdesh Prasad Sharma Resident Of Village- Jagat
Narayan Road, Opp. Patliputra Inter High School, Ps- Kadamkuan, Distt- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Ser. Adv.,
Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv.,
Mr. Adarsh Singh, Adv.,
Mr. Khalid Faizal, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Asha Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
4 03-10-2024 The petitioners have approached this Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying for quashing of the order of
cognizance taken against the petitioners, by the learned ACJM-
III, Danapur, in Complaint Case No. 251(C) of 2021, vide order
dated 20th April, 2021.
2. Admitted fact as available from the complaint is
that the petitioners and opposite party no. 2 have ancestral
property, appertaining to Chuk Nos. 37 and 34, ad-measuring 95
decimals under Khata No. 35, situated at villaga Tarwan, P.S.-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33354 of 2023(4) dt.03-10-2024
2/3
Naubatpur in the District-Patna. The opposite party no. 2 wanted
to develop the said land with a view to do some charitable and
religious work in public interest. The distance between public
road and the land is about 400 feet. Therefore, the complainant
and the accused persons/petitioners had entered into an
agreement on 25th May, 2017, whereby and whereunder the
parties agreed to construct 14 feet wide road, starting from the
land in question leading to public road. It is alleged that
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 had been causing obstruction and
hindrance in constructing the said road, on the ground that there
were deviation from the original land etc. It is alleged by the
complainant that the petitioners fraudulently and dishonestly
induced the complainant to deliver the property unto them and
thereby committed an offence of cheating.
3. The law is absolutely settled on the question of co-
ownership and co-sharership of a piece of land, that possession
of one co-sharer is deemed to be the possession of the other.
Therefore, there cannot be any inducement or delivery of
property in respect of the ancestral land, owned jointly by the
petitioners and the opposite party no.2. Moreover, there is no
allegation of criminal mis-appropriation. It is alleged by the
complainant/opposite party no. 2 that the petitioners demanded
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33354 of 2023(4) dt.03-10-2024
3/3
rangdari tax, which he was compelled to pay. There is no
description of such payment of money by the opposite party no.
2, in favour of the petitioners, in the four corners of the
complainant. Thus, the allegation under Section 406 of the I.P.C.
regarding criminal mis-appropriation also does not exists.
4. Moreover, there is absolutely no allegation under
Section 384 of the I.P.C.
5. The learned A.C.J.M.-III, Danapur failed to take
into consideration that dispute between the parties arose, as a
result alleged non performance of promise on the part of the
petitioners, which rendered the terms of the agreement, executed
by and between the parties a meaningless formality.
6. Considering such aspect of the matter, I do not find
any material in the aforesaid criminal case for further
proceeding and the impugned order dated 20th April, 2021,
passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-III, Danapur, is quashed and set
aside.
7. The instant Cr. Miscellaneous case is accordingly
allowed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
pravinkumar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.