Patna High Court
Ram Subhodh ChoudharyversusThe State Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that prima facie offences are made out and therefore the order taking cognizance cannot be quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Subhodh Choudhary, filed an application to quash the order dated 16.05.2018 in which a Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against him under IPC sections 406, 420 read with 34, based on a complaint by Dinanath Chaudhary alleging breach of a partnership agreement, non‑payment of dues and alleged extortion. The petitioner contended that the partnership deed had been cancelled in 2001, that an earlier complaint in 2004 had resulted in his acquittal, and that the present complaint was merely a procedural matter under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. The court examined the submissions and held that the defence could not be assessed at the interlocutory stage and that the records showed prima facie evidence of an offence. Consequently, the court found no merit in interfering with the magistrate’s order. The application for quashing was dismissed and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether the order taking cognizance of the petitioner under IPC 406, 420 read with 34 should be quashed.
- Whether the petitioner’s defence of cancellation of the partnership deed and prior acquittal negates the existence of a prima facie case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 107
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- quash order
- cognizance
- partnership dispute
- IPC 406
- IPC 420
- Section 34
- prima facie
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5791 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-227 Year-2011 Thana- KUSHESHWARASTHAN District-
Darbhanga
======================================================
Ram Subhodh Choudhary Late Kalikant Choudhary, resident of village-
Hirni,
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Dinanath Choudhary Son of Ramanand Choudhary, resident of village-
Hirni,
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
For the OP No.2 : Mr. Sabal Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
8 19-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This application has been filed for quashing
of the order taking cognizance dated 16.05.2018 passed in
Kusheshwar Asthan P.S. Case No.227 of 2011 whereby the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biraul, Darbhanga has
taken cognizance against the petitioner and another u/s 406, 420
read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has issued
summons against the petitioner and another.
3. As per the prosecution, the informant
namely, Dinanath Chaudhary submitted his written report
before the SHO Police Station Kusheshwar Asthan on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5791 of 2019(8) dt.19-01-2026
2/4
25.10.2011 stating therein that there was an agreement in Bricks
Kiln and informant had 10 paisa share and in total the petitioner
had saved about Rs.90,871 saving capital and out of the total
benefit of Rs.18,00,000/- of the partnership firm, the share of
informant was 2,70,000 and promised to pay within a month
but after 03 months only Rs.50,000/- was given. It is also
alleged that the accused persons tortured and grabbed
Rs.2,20,000/- from the informant.
4. On the basis of written application of the
informant, Kusheshwar Asthan P.S. Case No.227 of 2011 was
registered and cognizance has been taken against the accused
persons including the present petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with
the informant on 30.11.2000, which was cancelled vide deed
No. 11632, dated 30.06.2001. He next submits that previously,
the informant had filed another complaint case no.182C of 2004
against the petitioner and cognizance was taken under sections
323, 385, 504 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated
23.08.2004 for the same occurrence, however, the petitioner was
acquitted vide order dated 22.08.2018. Furthermore, the
informant had also submitted a petition before the S.H.O,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5791 of 2019(8) dt.19-01-2026
3/4
K.Asthgan upon which proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C.
was initiated before the S.D.O, Biraul in which the police
submitted a report regarding cancellation of the Partnership
deed.
6. I have considered the submission of the
parties and perused the impugned order.
7. It is trite law that the defence of the
petitioner can not be considered at this stage and this Court
cannot conduct a mini trial to ascertain the veracity of the
defence which can be only be determined during the course of
trial.
8. From perusal of the records of the case,
prima facie offences are made out against the petitioner.
Therefore, I do not find any merit to interfere with the order of
the learned Magistrate by which the learned Magistrate has
taken cognizance against the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order. This application is dismissed.
10. The Court below is directed to proceed in the
case and conclude the trial at the earliest preferably within one
year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5791 of 2019(8) dt.19-01-2026
4/4
the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga
forthwith through FAX or e-mail for its compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…