Patna High Court
ALOK KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The High Court held that the complaint and investigation disclose a prima facie case, and therefore the magistrate's cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 34 IPC is proper.
Summary
Alok Kumar filed an application seeking to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge that rejected his revision and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint, filed by his sister Shobha Kumari, alleged that a sale deed of disputed land was forged and that Alok Kumar participated in the fraud. The petitioner argued that the dispute was purely civil, arising from a partition suit, and that the criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of process. The State and the second respondent opposed, contending that a prima facie case existed. The Patna High Court examined the complaint and investigation records, found that they disclosed a prima facie case of cheating, fraud and impersonation, and held that the magistrate correctly took cognizance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition to quash the orders.
Issues considered
- Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 420 and 34 IPC constitute an abuse of process in a civil dispute arising from a partition suit.
- Whether a prima facie case exists against the petitioner to justify the magistrate's cognizance of the offences.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 420
Subjects
- Criminal law
- Cheating
- Fraud
- Impersonation
- Section 420 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Abuse of process
- Revision petition
- Cognizance
- Civil dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67702 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-403 Year-2016 Thana- UDWANTNAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Alok Kumar Son Of Ashok Kumar Singh @ Ashok Singh Resident Of Village
- Pawat Behra, Agarsanda Behra, P.S.- Ara Mufffasil, Distt - Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Shobha Kumari D/O Awadh Bihari Shaw R/O Village- Bhelie, P.S- Udwant
Nagar District- Bhojpur At Ara
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP
Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 27-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This application has been filed for quashing the
order dated 14.03.2019 passed in Cr. Rev No. 122 of 2018 by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Bhojpur at Ara by
which the Court below rejected the revision application filed by
the petitioner and also for quashing the order dated 31.08.2017,
passed in G.R. No. 5522 of 2016 arising out of Udwantnagar
P.S. Case No. 403 of 2016 by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhojpur Ara by which he took cognizance U/s 420
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons
including the petitioner.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67702 of 2019(4) dt.27-01-2026
2/4
namely Shobha Kumari, filed Complaint Case No.
1729(C)/2016 before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara. In the said complaint, allegations
were made against her brother Jiut Sah, her bhabhi Sheema
Devi, Monu Kumar (purchaser), and Alok Kumar (the present
petitioner). It was stated that the complainant’s father, Awadh
Bihari Sah, had filed Partition Suit No. 194/2018 against the
accused Jiut Sah and others. In the said partition suit, accused
Jiut Sah appeared and filed his written statement, and the suit is
presently pending before the Court of the Learned Sub Judge-
XIV, Ara. During the pendency of the suit, an order of
injunction dated 07.12.2011 was passed restraining the parties
from transferring the suit property. Despite the said injunction,
accused Jiut Sah violated the order and sold a portion of the
disputed land to Monu Kumar. Thereafter, the complainant’s
father as well as the complainant herself filed Miscellaneous
Case No. 01/2016 against accused Jiut Sah, which is still
pending at the stage of evidence. It is further alleged that
accused Jiut Sah intentionally and fraudulently sold the
remaining portion of the land which was the subject of Partition
Suit No. 54/2010. It is further alleged that the left thumb
impression of Awadh Bihari Sah, shown as a witness on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67702 of 2019(4) dt.27-01-2026
3/4
aforesaid sale deed, was forged and obtained through
impersonation. The complainant came to know about the same
after obtaining a certified copy of the sale deed. Thereafter, she
attempted to lodge an FIR at Udwantnagar Police Station, but
the police officials refused to register the case. Consequently,
she sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur,
through registered post dated 24.06.2016. Subsequently, the
complainant filed the aforesaid Complaint Case No.
1729(C)/2016 before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara, for offences punishable under
Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the
accused persons including the present petitioner. The said
complaint case was thereafter forwarded for investigation to
Udwantnagar Police Station, pursuant to which Udwantnagar
P.S. Case No. 403/2016, dated 24.11.2016, was registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature arising out
of a partition suit, and therefore initiation of criminal
proceedings is an abuse of the process of law. It is further
contended that the petitioner has no role in the alleged execution
of the sale deed and that no ingredients of the offence under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against him.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67702 of 2019(4) dt.27-01-2026
4/4
5. Per contra, learned APP for the State and learned
counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 vehemently oppose the
application. It is submitted that prima facie case has been found
against the petitioner.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and upon careful perusal of the records, this Court finds that the
complaint as well as the materials collected during investigation
disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences. The
allegations levelled against the petitioner is of cheating, fraud,
and impersonation. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhojpur at Ara has rightly taken cognizance of the offences, and
the revisional court has correctly affirmed the said order by
rejecting the revision petition. There is no illegality in the
impugned orders.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds
no merit in the present application. Accordingly, the application
stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…