Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5 of 2012 (5) dt.26-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.5 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Mahesh Singh S/O Late Rajeshwar Singh 2. Mukesh Sharma S/O Late Rajeshwar Singh 3. Ratnesh Singh S/O Mahesh Singh All are R/O Village- Lakshmanpur Bela, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Narendra Prasad Singh S/O Dev Prasad Singh R/O Village- Karori Chak, P.O. & P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Alok (Advocate) Mr. Amit (Advocate) Mr. Rakesh Kumar (Advocate) For the State : Mr. B. N. Pandey (A.P.P.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 5 26-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 though he has already made his appearance by filing Vakalatnama through his counsel. It would appear that on previous date i.e. on 25.07.2012, none had appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 and the case was adjourned. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 06.05.2010 passed by Smt. Pratibha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5 of 2012 (5) dt.26-07-2012 Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 931 C of 2010 by which and whereunder he having found prima facie case under [STATUTE] ordered to issue summons against the petitioners. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Narendra Prasad Singh filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 931 C of 2010 against the petitioners and three others in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 15.04.2010 alleging therein that wife of Opposite Party No. 2 had entered into an agreement of sale with Late Rajeshwar Singh, father of petitioners as well as other accused including the petitioners, for the sale of 3 acres and 19 decimals of land in her favour at the rate of five thousand two hundred fifty per kattha and, accordingly, his wife made payment of rupees two lacs and seventy thousand to late Rajeshwar Singh and after receiving the aforesaid amount late Rajeshwar Singh executed a power of attorney in favour of the Opposite Party No. 2. It is further contended by him that due to some financial problems the Opposite Party No. 2 and his wife could not pay the full consideration money and in the meantime, late Rajeshwar Singh filed complaint case against Opposite Party No. 2 but due to intervention of well-wishers a compromise was executed between Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5 of 2012 (5) dt.26-07-2012 Opposite Party No. 2, his wife and late Rajeshwar Singh and a panchnama was prepared on 23.09.2004 in which certain terms and conditions were mentioned. Furthermore, it is alleged that the petitioners and other accused neither executed sale deed in respect of the aforesaid land nor returned the amount and in the meantime, Rajeshwar Singh died on 25.01.2008. Although, the Opposite Party No. 2 persuaded the petitioners and other accused to execute the sale deed but they did not agree to execute the sale deed and after that legal notice was given to the petitioners and other accused and furthermore, on 07.04.2010, petitioners and other accused threatened the Opposite Party No. 2 and on 09.04.2010, while he was returning to his home after withdrawing rupees twenty thousand from the ATM of ICICI Bank, Raja Bazar, Patna, petitioners and other accused having armed with pistol came there and demanded half of the money upon which Opposite Party No. 2 handed over the money to petitioner no. 1 whereas co-accused Bhupender Kumar snatched the wrist watch and accused Arun Kumar snatched one golden chain of nearly 12 gms. They also assaulted the Opposite Party No. 2 with iron rod. It would appear that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna took the cognizance and transferred the case record to the court of Smt. Pratibha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5 of 2012 (5) dt.26-07-2012 Patna for enquiry and trial and after that an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was conducted and having found the prima facie case under [STATUTE] , learned Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 06.05.2010 in the manner as stated above. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that even if the story of complaint is accepted in toto, then also, it is a case of civil dispute and if the Opposite Party No. 2 is aggrieved for non-execution of the sale deed, he may file a civil suit for specific performance. It is contended by him that so far as story of snatching money and wrist watch is concerned, the same is nothing but only an attempt to make the offence graver. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as a matter of fact, the father of petitioners, namely, Late Rajeshwar Singh and petitioner no. 1 executed an agreement of sale in favour of wife of the Opposite Party No. 2 and in pursuance of aforesaid agreement of sale nine cheques on different dates were issued in favour of the above stated late Rajeshwar Singh by the Opposite Party No. 2 but when the aforesaid cheques were presented before the concerned bank, almost all the cheques became bounced and for which father of the petitioners filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 835 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5 of 2012 (5) dt.26-07-2012 C of 2003 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur. It is further contended by him that after filing of the aforesaid complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 835 C of 2003, the Opposite Party No. 2 has brought the present case with an ulterior motiv

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.