Patna High Court
Shyam Jee Singh and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The proceeding does not disclose any offence and is an abuse of process; therefore, it is quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Summary
The petitioners sought quashing of a criminal proceeding where a magistrate had taken cognizance under IPC sections 406, 420 and 120B based on a complaint alleging non‑payment of a settlement amount arising from a matrimonial dispute. The dispute had been resolved by a mutual divorce decree and the wife had affirmed receipt of the full settlement, including the contested cheque. The court observed that the complaint’s allegations, even if accepted, amounted to a civil monetary dispute and did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The non‑examination of the complainant and the role of a third‑party mediator further cast doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution. Applying the principles of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court held that continuation of the proceeding would be an abuse of process and quashed the criminal proceeding against the surviving petitioners.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a prima facie offence under IPC sections 406, 420 and 120B.
- Whether the proceeding constitutes an abuse of process warranting quashal under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
- Whether the dispute is essentially civil in nature and therefore not cognizable as a criminal offence.
- Whether the non‑examination of the complainant affects the viability of the criminal complaint.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 406, 420
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 482
- quash criminal proceeding
- abuse of process
- civil dispute
- IPC 406
- IPC 420
- IPC 120B
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- family law
- settlement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.358 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-656 Year-2014 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C
District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. Shyam Jee Singh
2. Chhatrabali Singh
Both sons of Vakil Singh
3. Vakil Singh
4. Rambahadur Singh
Both sons of Late Chandrama Singh
5. Sunil Kumar Singh, S/o Rambahadur Singh,
All residents of village - Bentiyari, P.S. - Iliya, District - Chandaul U.P.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bashisth Narayan Singh son of Late Dinanath Singh, Resident of Village -
Kekada, P.S. - Chand, Dist - Kaimur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shiopujan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
12 11-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 as well as learned APP for the
State.
2. The present application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the order dated
20.05.2015 passed by the Court of learned C.J.M., Kaimur at
Bhabhua (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in connection
with Complaint Case No.656 of 2014, wherein the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.358 of 2018(12) dt.11-05-2026
2/10
Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 406,
420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the
petitioners, who are in-laws of the daughter of the O.P. No.2.
3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as alleged in the
complaint petition is that the daughter of the complainant (O.P.
No.2), Bashisth Narayan Singh, was married to petitioner no.5,
however, due to matrimonial discord, the parties decided to
dissolve their marriage by mutual consent upon settlement of
permanent alimony amounting to Rs. 35,00,000/-. It is alleged
that out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- was paid to
the daughter of the complainant (O.P. No.2) through one Hari
Shankar Singh, who is stated to be the mediator, whereas the
remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was sought to be paid
through cheque, which allegedly could not be encashed on
account of insufficiency of funds in the bank account of the
accused persons. On the basis of the said allegation, Complaint
Case No.656 of 2014 came to be instituted alleging commission
of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian
Penal Code against the petitioners.
4. Upon considering the solemn affirmation of the
complainant (O.P. No.2), the statements of the inquiry witnesses
recorded during the inquiry and the materials available on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.358 of 2018(12) dt.11-05-2026
3/10
record, the learned Magistrate found prima facie case to be
made out against the petitioners and accordingly took
cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code vide the impugned order
dated 20.05.2015 passed in in Complaint Case No.656 of 2014.
Being aggrieved by the said impugned order of cognizance and
the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, the present
Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been preferred.
5. During the pendency of the present case, petitioner
nos.3, 4 and 5 have already died. Petitioner no.3 was the uncle-
in-law, petitioner no.4 was the fater-in-law and petitioner no.5
was the husband of the daughter of O.P. No.2. Petitioner nos. 1
and 2 are cousin of petitioner no.5, who are still alive.
Therefore, the present application survives only with respect to
petitioner no.1 and 2 only.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order of cognizance suffers from complete non-
application of judicial mind inasmuch as the learned Magistrate
failed to appreciate that even if the entire allegations made in
the complaint petition are taken at their face value, no offence
under Sections 406, 420 or 120B of the Indian Penal Code is
made out against the petitioners. He submits that the admitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.358 of 2018(12) dt.11-05-2026
4/10
case of the complainant (O.P. No.2) itself is that the matrimonial
dispute between the daughter of the O.P. No.2 and petitioner
no.5 had already been settled amicably and pursuant thereto a
mutual divorce petition was filed before the competent Family
Court, Chandauli which was finally allowed vide judgment
dated 10.04.2014 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 366 of 2013.
Learned counsel further submits that in the said proceeding the
wife of petitioner no.5 had categorically stated before the
Family Court that she had received the entire agreed amount and
nothing remained due against her husband or his family
members. It is submitted that after culmination of the
matrimonial dispute and decree of divorce on mutual consent,
the subsequent institution of the present complaint case is
wholly malicious and an abuse of the process of the Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the entire prosecution case revolves around an alleged
cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- said to have been handed over through
inquiry witness no.3, namely Hari Shankar Singh, who
admittedly acted as mediator between the parties. Learned
counsel submits that the said witness himself appears to be the
main architect behind the institution of the present complaint
case and there is no allegation whatsoever to show any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.358 of 2018(12) dt.11-05-2026
5/10
dishonest inducement or entrustment so as to constitute offences
under Sections 420 or 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It is
submitted that, at best, the allegations, even if accepted in
entirety, may give rise to a proceeding under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and not for the offences for which
cognizance has been taken. Learned counsel accordingly
submits that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
surviving petitioners would amount to misuse of the criminal
justice system and, therefore, the impugned order as well as the
entire criminal proceeding are fit to be quashed in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
8. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 opposes the prayer
for quashing and submits that the allegations made in the
complaint petition, coupled with the statements recorded during
inquiry, clearly disclose prima facie commission of offences
under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code
against the petitioners. It is submitted that disputed questions of
fact are involved in the present matter which cannot be
adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
and, therefore, the petitioners ought to face trial before the
learned Magistrate.
9. Learned APP for the State also opposes the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.358 of 2018(12) dt.11-05-2026
6/10
application and submitted that the learned Magistrate, upon
consideration of the materials available on record, has rightly
taken cognizance against the petitioners and, at the stage of
cognizance, meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court is
conscious of the settled legal position that the inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection and only to prevent abuse of the
process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Though, at the stage of cognizance or quashing, the Court is not
expected to meticulously appreciate the evidentiary value of the
materials collected during inquiry or investigation, yet where
the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint petition
and the materials brought on record fail to disclose the essential
ingredients constituting the alleged offences or where
continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse
of the process of law, the High Court would be justified in
exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.
11. Admittedly, the entire dispute emanates from a
matrimonial discord between the daughter of O.P. No.2 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.358 of 2018(12) dt.11-05-2026
7/10
petitioner no.5, which ultimately culminated into a decree of
divorce by mutual consent passed by the competent Family
Court vide judgment dated 10.04.2014. The materials available
on record further indicate that before the Family Court the wife
of petitioner no.5 had specifically acknowledged that she had
received the agreed settlement amount and nothing further
remained due against the petitioners. Surprisingly, despite being
the principal and most material person in relation to the alleged
non-payment, the daughter of O.P. No.2 was neither examined
as an inquiry witness during the proceeding nor has any
explanation been furnished for her non-examination. In the
opinion of this Court, such omission assumes significance
particularly when the entire prosecution case is founded upon an
alleged unpaid amount said to be payable for her benefit alone.
12. This Court further finds from the complaint
petition itself that the alleged cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- was not
issued directly in favour of the daughter of O.P. No.2, rather the
same is alleged to have been handed over to the inquiry witness
no.3, namely Hari Shankar Singh, who admittedly acted as
mediator between the parties and also happens to be related to
both sides. The said witness appears to be the pivot of the entire
prosecution story. Even according to the complaint allegations,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.358 of 2018(12) dt.11-05-2026
8/10
it was inquiry witness no.3 who allegedly received the cheque
and subsequently informed the complainant (O.P. No.2) about
insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused persons.
However, there is nothing on record to show that before
institution of the complaint case, the petitioners were ever
informed by the said witness regarding dishonour or non-
clearance of the cheque. The conduct of the said witness,
coupled with the admitted settlement before the Family Court,
creates serious doubt over the genuineness of the prosecution
story.
13. Moreover, this Court finds substance in the
submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that even if the
allegations are accepted in their entirety, the same
predominantly disclose a dispute of civil nature arising out of
alleged non-payment of money and do not satisfy the essential
ingredients constituting the offences under Sections 406 and 420
of the Indian Penal Code. There is no material indicating any
dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners from the very
inception of the transaction nor is there any allegation of
entrustment and subsequent dishonest misappropriation of
property. Rather, from the admitted facts, it appears that the
matrimonial dispute had already attained finality upon mutual
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.358 of 2018(12) dt.11-05-2026
9/10
settlement and decree of divorce and the present criminal
proceeding has been instituted thereafter, apparently giving a
criminal colour to what is essentially a private monetary dispute.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case,
this Court finds that the case of the petitioners squarely falls
within the categories illustratively laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal
and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein it has
been held that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the
allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face
value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or where the proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and has been maliciously instituted with ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance. This Court further finds support
from the principles reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 wherein it has been
observed that criminal prosecution should not be permitted to
continue when the dispute is predominantly civil in nature and
the essential ingredients of the alleged criminal offences are
absent. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of
the present case, particularly the admitted settlement before the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.358 of 2018(12) dt.11-05-2026
10/10
Family Court, the acknowledgment of receipt of settled amount
by the daughter of O.P. No.2, her non-examination as inquiry
witness and the fact that the alleged cheque was admittedly
issued through a third-party mediator, this Court is of the
considered opinion that continuation of the present criminal
proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court
and interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is warranted.
15. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous
Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.05.2015
passed by the learned C.J.M., Kaimur at Bhabua in Complaint
Case No.656 of 2014, whereby cognizance has been taken for
the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of
the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, as well as the
entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, so far as the
surviving petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed and set
aside.
16. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.
17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Court concerned forthwith for needful.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Harish/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.