Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.39331 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. M/S Patliputra Engineers Ltd. @ M/S Patliputra Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Floor, Grand Chandra Apartment, Frazer Road, Patna through its Director Sanjeev Kumar Lakhaiyar S/O Late Bijoy Kumar Lakhaiyar, r/o Lakhaiyar House, P.S. & Mohalla, Kadam Kuan, district- Patna 2. Sanjeev Kumar Lakhaiyar S/O Late Bijoy Kumar Lakhaiyar, r/o Lakhaiyar House, P.S. & Mohalla, Kadam Kuan, district- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ratnesh Kumar Lakhaiyar Son of Late Akhileshwar Prasad Lakhaiyar, R/O Lakhaiyar House, Behind Jahaji Kothi, Mohalla- Kadam Kian, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District-Patna, at present Flat No.201, 2nd Floor, Patliputra Enclave , Nehru Nagar, Gosain Tola More, P.S. Patliputra, District-Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ------------------------ 2 04-05-2012 Heard Sri Shambu Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Pronoti Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , have prayed for quashing of an order dated 28.03.2009 passed by Shri Anand Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case no.2846 ( C) of 2008. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39331 of 2010 (2) dt.04-05-2012 2 / 3 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly submits that petitioner no.2 and the complainant/Opp.Party no.2 are cousins and due to family dispute, the complainant implicated the petitioner as accused in the complaint petition. He further submits that the petitioner no.1, who was Developer of Apartment, had initially allotted Flat No.201 to one Vinay Kumar Singh. However, subsequently, Flat no.101 was allotted to Vinay Kumar Singh, but in the meanwhile, Vinay Kumar Singh had obtained loan on Flat No.201 from the Bank. Flat no.201 was subsequently allotted to the complainant. Thereafter, the flat in question was seized by the Bank official under the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2001(hereinafter referred to as “SRFAESI Act”). He submits that the complainant was having knowledge regarding the exchange of the flat, even then while filing the complaint petition, the complainant arrayed the petitioners as accused in the complaint petition along with one Vinay Kumar Singh. On the aforesaid ground, he has prayed for quashing the order of cognizance. After going through impugned order of cognizance and considering the materials available on record, the Court is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39331 of 2010 (2) dt.04-05-2012 3 / 3 3 of the opinion that there is no error in the order of cognizance, which requires no interference. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 418

Statute Text:
Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating a person whose interest the offender was bound, either by law or by legal contract, to protect. Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound either by law, or by legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.