Patna High Court
SUBHASH PRASAD YADAVversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Holding
The Court held that the FIR is frivolous and the dispute is essentially civil, therefore the criminal proceeding must be quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Subhash Prasad Yadav, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quash of FIR No. 425/2023 registered at Bihta Police Station, which alleged offences under multiple IPC sections arising from a land sale dispute. He contended that the FIR was false, malicious, and essentially a civil matter concerning the return of consideration money and the title to the land. The Court examined the test for quashing FIRs under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC, referring to Supreme Court precedents that require a prima facie case of offence and absence of malicious intent. Finding that the allegations pertained to a civil dispute over property and did not disclose any criminal offence, the Court held the FIR to be frivolous. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the criminal proceeding was quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR registered under multiple IPC sections can be quashed under Article 226/Section 482 when the underlying dispute is civil in nature.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a prima facie case of offence or amount to malicious prosecution.
- Whether the High Court can intervene to quash criminal proceedings on the ground of frivolous or vexatious complaint.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 26
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 156(3), 174, 482
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 323, 341, 342, 384, 386, 406, 420, 447, 448, 506
Subjects
- Article 226
- Section 482 CrPC
- quashing FIR
- malicious prosecution
- civil dispute
- land sale
- high court writ jurisdiction
- frivolous complaint
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 64 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-425 Year-2023 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
Subhash Prasad Yadav, Son Of Late Shiv Prasad Yadav R/O Mohalla-
Vidhayak Colony, Kautilya Nagar, P.S.- Hawai Adda, Dist.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through The Home Secretary, Government Of Bihar
Patna
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar Patna
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bihar Patna
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Danapur, Patna Bihar
5. The Station House Officer, Bihta Police Station, Dist.- Patna Bihar
6. Bhim Verma Sonof Suresh Verma R/O Bela, Post- Neura, P.S.- Bihta, Dist.-
Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhumay Madhup, Advocate
Mr. Nishikant, Advocate
Mr. Anand Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shiv Kumar, AC to G.A. - 3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-03-2024
1. The Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for the following reliefs :
(i) For issuance of
appropriate Writ / Writs, direction /
directions or orders / order, quashing the
Bihta P. S. Case No. 425 of 2023, dated
04.05.2023, registered under Sections 447,
448, 341, 342, 323, 384, 386, 406, 420,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
2/12
506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code on
the basis of written application given by
one person, namely, Bhim Verma, against
the above-named Petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of
appropriate Writ / Writs, direction /
directions or orders / order, directing the
Respondents that during the pendency of
the present writ petition, the Respondents
may be restrained from taking any
coercive step in pursuance of the
proceeding in Bihta P. S. Case No. 425 of
2023, dated 04.05.2023.
(iii) For any other relief /
reliefs, which the Hon'ble Court may grant
in general interest, that may be deemed
appropriate and necessary in this case.
2. It is submitted by the Petitioner that the Bihta P.
S. Case No. 425 of 2023, dated 4th of May 2023 under Sections
447, 448, 341, 342, 323, 384, 386, 406, 420, 506 and 120B of
the Indian Penal Code was registered on the basis of a written
complaint submitted by one Bhim Verma, Respondent No. 6
herein, on the allegation that the father of the Informant entered
into an agreement for a tenure of three months with one person,
namely, Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya for sale of a piece
of land. However, the said Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya
did not pay the entire amount and the period of agreement had
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
3/12
expired. Thereafter, the mother of the Informant, namely, Meena
Devi executed a deed of conveyance in respect of plots of land,
bearing Plot No. 2296, corresponding to Khata No. 26 and Plot
No. 2299, corresponding to Khata No. 28, measuring about 7
khatas in favour of the wife of the present Petitioner at a
consideration price of Rs. 96 Lakhs. Prior to the sale, the
Petitioner was duly informed about the agreement with the said
Arun Kumar executed by Ramanand Rai but he had chosen to
purchase the said land. On 27th February, 2023, the Petitioner
called both the Informant and Arun Kumar @ Munshi @
Mukhiya at his residence. The Informant, accordingly, reached
the house of the Petitioner. Then the Petitioner allegedly told the
Informant to return entire money and he wished not to transfer
his land, sold to his wife to which Arun Kumar @ Munshi @
Mukhiya also agreed. It is also alleged that the Petitioner
threatened and intimidated the Informant, taking the mother and
brother of the Informant hostage and sent the Informant to bring
Rs. 60. 50 Lakhs from village Arap. The said money was duly
handed over to him. The Informant was further threatened of
being killed by the Petitioner. Upon being asked for receipt of
payment Rs. 60. 50 Lakhs, the Petitioner also threatened the
Informant saying the Informant that if he reveals anything to
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
4/12
third person, he will face dire consequences. The incident took
place in presence of some witnesses. It is also alleged that the
Informant told Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya that he
should take back the consideration amount of the agreement,
upon which Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya told the
Informant to hand over the entire money to Subhash Prasad
Yadav. The FIR further discloses that Arun Kumar @ Munshi @
Mukhiya brought another Arun Kumar, Son of Satyadev Singh
of Sikandarpur within Police Station Bihta and claimed to have
been sent by Subhash Prasad Yadav, who also asked the
Informant to transfer Rs. 30 Lakhs into the account of Arun
Kumar. The informant was persuaded by Arun Kumar of
Sikandarpur to sign a document acknowledging receipt of Rs. 1
crore, and then only Arun Kumar of Sikandarpur would get Rs.
60. 50 Lakhs deposited in the account of Arun Kumar @
Munshi @ Mukhiya. The informant due to fear put his signature
on a stamp paper. Thereafter, Arun Kumar @ Munshi @
Mukhiya forcibly entered into the informant’s house, demanded
money and threatened to kill the Informant and his family. The
informant immediately called police, upon which Arun Kumar
@ Munshi @ Mukhiya was arrested and brought to Neura
Police Station on 16th of August, 2022, but no FIR was
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
5/12
registered. On 6th of June, 2022, the Informant met the Chief
Minister and submitted an application, after which, the Chief
Minister of the State of Bihar directed the District Magistrate,
Patna to inquire into the matter. The Informant also submitted
few audio and video recordings, but despite giving all such
evidences, the Police did not file any FIR against the Petitioner
as well as Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya and others. Only
on 4th of May, 2022, the Informant had a meeting with the
District Magistrate, Patna and he asked him to meet the Senior
Superintendent of Police. Only then, his FIR was accepted
against former Sarpanch, Pankaj Singh, Arjun Rai, Arun Kumar
@ Munshi @ Mukhiya, Renu Devi, Subhas Prashad Yadav and
Randhir Yadav.
3. The Petitioner also submitted that previously he
was made accused in respect of the following cases:-
(i) Rupaspur P. S. Case No.
300 of 2023, registered under Sections
341, 323, 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Shastri Nagar P. S. Case
No. 458 of 2009, registered under
Sections 447, 341, 342, 504, 511 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 26
of the Arms Act, 1959.
(iii) Complaint Case No. 2267
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
6/12
of 2012, registered under Sections 342,
323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) Mir Ganj P. S. Case No.
175 of 2012, registered under Sections
341, 323, 354, 504 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
4. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that
from bare perusal of the FIR, It would appear that the said FIR
is a piece of mischief registered against several persons
including the present Petitioner, his wife and son at the behest of
the Informant who himself is guilty of committing the fraud
with regard to property in question. It is also stated that the
transaction relating to sale of land was executed on 26th of
February, 2021. It is alleged by the Informant that on 27th
February, 2021, the Petitioner had kept the mother and brother
of the Informant in hostage, but on that date, the mother and the
brother of the Petitioner were traveling to Ahmedabad by a
Spice Jet flight. Therefore, all such allegations are false and
concocted to the knowledge of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has
also sent a notice to the Informant of defamation on 27th May
2022.
5. On the above facts, it is pleaded by the Petitioner
that the FIR in question contains false and frivolous stories
against the Petitioner relating to transaction in respect of sale of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
7/12
a piece of land, which was executed on 26th February, 2021.
6. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner attacks
the veracity of Bhita P.S. Case No. 425 of 2023, dated 4th of
May 2023, on the ground of inordinate delay. In support of his
contention, he refers to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma and Ors. vs. State
of Chhattisgarh & Anr., reported in (2016) 9 SCC 1.
7. What happened in the above-mentioned reported
decision is that a bride committed suicide by hanging her in
matrimonial home within five months of marriage. Inquiry was
conducted by police under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, upon receipt of information regarding death offense.
No offense was found to have been committed. The report of
inquiry under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C was forwarded to the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which was accepted and the case
was finally closed. After about five years, on the basis of
anonymous letter received by the brother of the deceased,
wherein it was stated that the death of his sister was a planned
murder, the father of the deceased registered FIR under Sections
304B and 498A of the IPC against the husband and other
matrimonial relations of the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court, while quashing the FIR, held that to invoke inherent
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
8/12
jurisdiction under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court must be
fully satisfied that material produced on record is based on
sound, justifiable and reasonable facts. In the aforesaid report,
allegations made in the FTR are inherently improbable and
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose
commission of any offense and make out a case against the
appellants. Malicious prosecution was instituted by the brother
of the deceased after a period of five years and that too on the
basis of anonymous letters. There was no accusation against the
appellants before filing of FIR. Allegations are vague and do not
warrant continuation of criminal proceedings against the
appellant.
8. On the above finding, it was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that the High Court failed to apply the test
whether uncontroverted allegations, as made, prima facie,
established the offense. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on due
consideration of entire facts and circumstances quashed the FIR.
9. It is needless to say that for quashing an FIR
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, parameters of
consideration is similar with that of the application under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. If the FRI is found to be maliciously
instituted or on prima facie reading, it does not disclose any
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
9/12
offense against the Petitioner, the constitutional Court, in
exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction can quash the FIR by
issuance of Writ of Certiorari.
10. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner also
refers to another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mahmood Ali vs. State of U.P. reported in AIRONLINE
2023 SC 602. In this report the Hon’ble Supreme Court was
pleased to discuss the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution
and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when it
comes to the question of quashing of FIR. It is held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that whenever an accused comes before
the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution to get FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed
essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly
frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes
a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
Once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused
with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc.,
then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted
with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
10/12
that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they
disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to
look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous
or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging from the record
of the case, over and above the averments, and, if need be, with
due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict
itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into
account the overall circumstances leading to
initiation/registration of the case as well as the material
collected in the course of investigation.
11. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that a
deed of sale was executed on 26th of February, 2021 by the
Informant in favour of the wife of the Petitioner. The allegation
against the Informant is that after execution of sale-deed, he put
illegal pressure to the Petitioner to handover the consideration
price saying that he is not willing to purchase the property and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
11/12
he would return the land to the Informant. The Informant
returned the entire consideration money but the Petitioner did
not return the land. It is also not in dispute that the FIR was
registered vide Bihta P.S. Case No. 425 of 2023 on 4th May,
2023, while the registered deed of sale was executed on 26th of
February 2021. If the Informant was threatened, extorted and
forced to pay illegally the consideration of money back to the
Petitioner, he could have taken recourse of Section 156 (3) of
the Cr.P.C. at the earliest when the police refused to accept the
FIR from the Informant. Moreover, on perusal of the entire FIR
closely, it appears to this Court that the dispute is essentially
civil in nature. If the averment of the Informant in the FIR is
accepted to be true, the pith and substance of the FIR is that the
Petitioner induced the Informant to sell out his land at a
consideration price of Rs. 96 lakhs. Subsequently, the Petitioner
took away the said consideration money with the help of others
on condition that he would return the land. But he did not return
the land. The Petitioner is under obligation to return the subject
land in favour of the Informant after taking back the
consideration money.
12. Therefore, the real issue involved between the
parties is as to whether without paying consideration money to
Patna High Court CR. WJC No. 64 of 2024 dt.15-03-2024
12/12
the Informant, can a sale be completed or not. This issue is
essentially civil in nature and this question can only be decided
by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
13. For the reasons stated above, this Court does
not find any ground for rejection of the writ petition.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
15. The criminal proceeding, being Bihta P.S. Case
No. 425 of 2023, dated 4th of May, 2023, is quashed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
uttam/-skm
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 20/03/2024
Transmission Date 20/03/2024
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.