Patna High Court
Shyama Devi @ Srimati Shyama Devi and OrsversusState of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The prosecution is malafide; the order of the Judicial Magistrate is quashed with respect to petitioners 3 and 4.
Summary
The petitioners sold a parcel of land to the complainant, promising to hand over possession after the sale deed was executed, but thereafter refused to deliver possession and threatened the complainant. The complainant filed a criminal complaint, leading to an order dated 25.01.2018 by the Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura. Petitioners 1 and 2 died during the pendency, so their applications were deemed withdrawn, while petitioners 3 and 4, being the sons of the vendor, were found to be involved in a civil dispute masquerading as a criminal case. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, held that the prosecution was malafide and could not continue. Consequently, the court quashed the magistrate’s order with respect to petitioners 3 and 4 and allowed the complainant to seek appropriate relief in the lower court.
Issues considered
- Whether the criminal prosecution arising from a land sale dispute is malafide and liable to be quashed.
- Whether a civil dispute can be given the colour of a criminal case under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Subjects
- land sale
- possession dispute
- malafide prosecution
- quash criminal proceeding
- civil dispute as criminal case
- High Court of Patna
- Criminal Miscellaneous
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6384 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2016 Thana- MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE
District- Madhepura
======================================================
1. Shyama Devi @ Srimati Shyama Devi and Ors W/o Jay Narayan Mandal
Resident of Village - Bhirkhi Dakshinbari, Ward No. 22, Madhepura, P.S.-
Madhepura, Distt.- Madhepura, Permanent Address of Village - Kushaha,
P.S.- Kishanpur, District- Supaul
2. Jay Narayan Mandal Son of Late Surya Narayan Mandal Resident of Village
- Bhirkhi Dakshinbari, Ward No. 22, Madhepura, P.S.- Madhepura, Dist.-
Madhepura, Permanent Address of Village - Kushaha, P.S.-Kishanpur,
District-Supaul
3. Devesh Kumar Resident of Village - Bhirkhi Dakshinbari, Ward No. 22,
Madhepura, P.S.- Madhepura, Dist.- Madhepura, Permanent Address of
Village - Kushaha, P.S.-Kishanpur, District-Supaul
4. Bhushan Kumar @ Jayant Kumar Son of Jay Narayan Mandal Resident of
Village - Bhirkhi Dakshinbari, Ward No. 22, Madhepura, P.S.- Madhepura,
Dist.- Madhepura, Permanent Address of Village - Kushaha, P.S.-Kishanpur,
District-Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Kishore Kumar Jha Son of Digambar Jha Resident of Village - Hariraha, P.S.
Shankarpur, Dist.- Madhepura
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisuzzoha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 22-01-2026 Heard the parties including the learned counsel for the
complainant.
2. This application has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners for quashing the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-cum-Principal
Magistrate, Madhepura in connection with Complaint Case No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6384 of 2019(3) dt.22-01-2026
2/3
81 of 2016 / CIS No. 81 of 2016.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners sold a
land to the complainant by with a promise that they will hand
over the possession of the same after execution of the sale deed
but after execution of the sale deed the petitioners did not gave
the possession of the same to the complainant and threatened
him.
4. From the perusal of the earlier order dated
25.07.2024, it appears that the petitioner no. 1 and 2 have died
during the pendency of this application and therefore, this
application is dismissed as withdrawn with respect to them as
having become infructuous.
5. So far as petitioner no. 3 and 4 are concerned, they
are sons of the vendor of the complainant and it appears to be a
civil dispute which is given colour of a criminal case.
6. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that
the present prosecution is a malafide one which cannot be
allowed to continue in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
7. Accordingly, this application is allowed with regard
to petitioner nos. 3 and 4 and the order dated 25.01.2018 passed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6384 of 2019(3) dt.22-01-2026
3/3
by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-cum-Principal
Magistrate, Madhepura in connection with Complaint Case No.
81 of 2016 / CIS No. 81 of 2016, is hereby quashed with regard
to the petitioner nos. 3 and 4.
8. However, the complainant is given liberty to file an
appropriate application in the court below with regard to the
present dispute.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U
Checking your session…