Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11309 of 2011 (4) dt.27-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.11309 of 2011 ====================================================== Ram Chandar Sah son of late Garbhu Sah, r/o village-Chhagalia, Belwa, PS-Kishanganj, District-Kishanganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Pramod Ram son of Laxman Ram, r/o village-Chhagalia, PO-Belwa, PS-Kishanganj, District-Kishanganj. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Diwakar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amal Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Sharan, Adv. For the State Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 27-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Kishanganj in Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 222/2000 arising from G.R. No. 792/2000 for offences under [STATUTE] . It has been alleged in the prosecution story that the informant had entered into an agreement to purchase six decimals of land for constructing the house and in pursuance thereof he had paid Rs. 1,000/- to Md. Ayob Ansari in advance and rest amount of Rs. 5,000/- was to be paid later on. After some time the complainant knew that Md. Ayub Ansari, accused No. 1 had already sold the land to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11309 of 2011 (4) dt.27-09-2012 Ramchandra Sah, accused No. 2 which led to filing of this case. The court below has taken cognizance in the matter. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after payment of the valuable consideration amount had/has purchased the land and as such, no case is made out against him and the present prosecution is an abuse of the process of the Court. The counsel for the opposite party has submitted that four witnesses have already been examined and three witnesses have left to examine. In view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 (1) PLJR SC 42 (State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi) where the Hon’ble Court has held that if the trial has already been proceeded, in that circumstance, the higher Court should not unnecessary to interfere with the trial. As four witnesses have already been examined in the case, this Court in view of aforesaid judgment, is not interfering with lower court proceeding or giving any opinion on the merit of the case. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed and the court below is directed to conclude the trial within three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, 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.