Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29276 of 2009 (7) dt.17-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.29276 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Ramashish Singh 2. Amaresh Kumar 3. Tapeshwari Devi 4. Samina Kumari 5. Gopal Kumar Singh 6. Sonal Devi alias Sonal Kumari 7. Chandra Vilas Singh 8. Kesh Ranjan Devi 9. Arti Kumari .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Chandra Shekhar Singh .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioners : Mr. Rudra Deo Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party No.2 Mr. Abhya Kumar Mr. Ram Chandra Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL ORDER 7 17-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties on merit of the case. Initially for the allegation of present complaint petition, Complaint Case No. 776 of 2000 was filed which was sent for lodging an F.I.R. that was complied, matter was investigated, final form submitted and accepted also. A protest cum complaint filed in the case, enquiry witnesses examined on S.A. and cognizance is taken in the case. Complaint case, in brief, is that complainant’s son was married with accused petitioner no.4 Samina Kumari against her will under pressure of rest of accused persons only to realize some Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29276 of 2009 (7) dt.17-07-2012 gift and marriage expenses. She never accepted complainant’s son as her husband. She was not allowed to come in company of complainant’s son. Other averment is also there but not relevant for making out any offence under [STATUTE] . Witnesses are also examined on S.A. in course of enquiry and cognizance is taken. Submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that averment in Complaint petition if is accepted in its totality then also no offence is made that cannot be controverted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposite party no.2. There can be no divergent view on the point of allegation constitutes no offence at all and cognizance is taken without application of mind in this case. In the discussed facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.6.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 222 of 2009/Tr. No. 1683/09 by Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad is quashed. A.I./- (Mandhata Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.