Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.49300 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Chandrika Sah 2. Pramod Prasad 3. Amod Prasad @ Amod Kumar .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dharmawati Devi .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioners : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 04-12-2012 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.8.2008 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Cr. Rev. No. 57 of 2008 affirming the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in Shikarpur P. S. Case No. 211 of 2007 whereby cognizance has been taken under [STATUTE] . Allegation against the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioner no.1 purchased 4 dhurs of plot no.35 at Marjadwa Bazar for business purpose from the nuclear of joint family. Thereafter with consent of all the family members the said land was sold to Madan Prasad Arya for consideration money of Rs. 4,30,000/. Informant Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49300 of 2008 (4) dt.04-12-2012 2 is daughter of petitioner no.1 Chandrika Sah from his first wife, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are sons of petitioner no.1 from third wife. Land is purchased in favour of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 from the same Madan Prasad Arya. It is further alleged that informant demanded her share in the property but was refused rather ousted. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that land was not ancestral one rather purchased by petitioner no.1 in his own name which only was sold having no share of any other family members including informant. His further submission is that if it would have been the joint family property then also it can not be a case under the provision of [STATUTE] or [STATUTE] . For [STATUTE] entrustment is necessary and for [STATUTE] cheating is necessary which is lacking in the case. I am convinced with the view submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners. Taking the same into consideration, the application is allowed and the impugned orders dated 19.8.2008 passed in Cr. Rev. no. 57 of 2008 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah and the order of cognizance dated 14.2.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49300 of 2008 (4) dt.04-12-2012 3 Shikarpur P. S. Case No. 211 of 2007 (Complaint Case No. 1983- C/2007) are quashed. A.I./N.A.F.R. (Mandhata Singh, 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.