Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25139 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Ganesh Singh 2. Mahesh Singh Both sons of Sarjug Singh, r/o village Mohanpur, P.S. & Distt. Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ram Ekbal Mahto, son of late Subedar Mahto, r/o village Mohanpur, P.S. & Distt. Sitamarhi. .... .... Opposite Party/s Presence: For the petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr.-2, A.P.P. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 3. 09-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 1.5.2009 passed in G.R. No. 1009 of 2004, Trial No. 2483 of 2009 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi, has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . The case of the Complainant/Informant is that the petitioners and the deceased were related to each other and in the year 1997 a deed of gift was executed by the mother of the Complainant/Informant in favour of the petitioner No. 1 in respect of which Partition suit No. 177 of 1999 was filed before the Court of Sub Judge, Sitamarhi. It was alleged that on account of land dispute that the mother of the Informant was strangulated by the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25139 of 2009 (3) dt.09-04-2012 2 / 3 2 petitioners on 24.5.2009. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the deed of gift was executed in the year 1997 but till her death, the deceased never made any protest that the petitioners had cheated her and misappropriated the property. It is only after her death that the Informant has taken it upon himself to institute the present Complaint/First Information Report in 2004 out of malice. Fact of the matter was that the deceased was annoyed with the Opposite party, her son, and used to live with the petitioners who looked after her in her life time. She had also given evidence to this effect and that she had executed the deed of gift willingly in the Title Suit (Annexure-5). After her death, the Opposite party attempted to grab the lands gifted by the deceased and was filing one case after the other which are being proved false. The present case was also found partly false as far as allegation of murder was concerned. There is no material except bald allegations with regard to [STATUTE] . The counsel for the Informant does not dispute that the deed of gift was executed in the year 1997 or that no protest was made in its regard by the deceased while she was alive nor the evidence of the deceased in the Title Suit. It is also conceded that Title Partition Suit is pending between the parties as to whether Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25139 of 2009 (3) dt.09-04-2012 3 / 3 3 the deed of gift is genuine which is the point for determination. Having heard the learned counsels, I am of the view that even conceding the facts stated in the Complaint/First Information Report, there is absolutely no material in support of the fact that the petitioners had cheated the deceased or misappropriated her property. The deceased alone was a competent witness in this regard who could have made such a complaint and the Informant appears to have filed the present case for ulterior reasons after the death of his mother in order to settle the land dispute. In view of such, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 1.5.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi, in connection with G.R. No. 1009 of 2004, Trial No. 2483 of 2009 arising out of Sitamarhi P.S. case No. 255 of 2004 is hereby quashed. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.