Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13136 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Annapurna Devi, W/O Late jwala Prasad Singh 2. Nirjala Devi, W/O Muneshwar Prasad Singh 3. Krityanand Singh @ Buchhu Singh, Son of Late Ramnandan Singh. All are residents of village Kasay tola Rahatpur, P.S. Surajgarha, District Lakhisarai at present all are residents of Mohalla karyanand Nagar Lakhisarai, Purani Bazar Ward No.5, P.S. & District Lakhisarai. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Shanker Prasad Singh, S/o Late Vidit Narayan Singh, R/Vill. Kasoy Tola Rahatpur, P.S. Surajgarha, Distt. Lakhisarai. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 24-02-2012 Heard Shri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Maya Nand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 5.1.2008 passed in Surajgarha Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13136 of 2008 (5) dt.24-02-2012 2 / 19 2 P.S. Case No.210 of 2007/G.R. Case No.865 of 2007, whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai had taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the order of cognizance, submits that no offence is made out even on the basis of F.I.R. itself. It was submitted that petitioners and informant of the case were co-sharers and allegation was made that the petitioners had sold lands in excess to their share and as such it was submitted that it was clear cut dispute of civil nature, for which the informant may not be allowed to proceed with the criminal case against the petitioners. It was submitted that for such dispute, civil case has also been instituted and matter is still pending. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if on perusal of the F.I.R. no offence Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13136 of 2008 (5) dt.24-02-2012 3 / 19 3 is made out, the court, while exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may interfere with the case at initial stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his argument, has relied on Apex Court judgment reported in 2009(8) SCC 751 (Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another) and 2009(7) SCC 495 (Devendra and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another). While referring to Md. Md. Ibrahim‟s case (Supra), learned counsel for the petitioners has specifically relied on paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment, which are quoted herein below : “7. The question that therefore arises for consideration is whether the material on record prima facie constitutes any offences against the accused. The contention of the appellant is that if the allegations made Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13136 of 2008 (5) dt.24-02-2012 4 / 19 4 in the complaint and FIR, even if accepted to be true in entirety did not disclose the ingredients of any offence of forgery (Sections 467 and 471) or cheating (Section 420) or insult (Section 504) or wrongful restraint (Section 341) or causing hurt (Section 323) and there was no other material to show any offence and therefore, their application ought to have been accepted.” “8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13136 of 2008 (5) dt.24-02-2012 5 / 19 5 apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. (See G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. and Indian Oil Corpn. V. NEPC India Ltd.) Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind.” Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13136 of 2008 (5) dt.24-02-2012 6 / 19 6 Learned counsel has also referred to paragraphs 11 and 24 of Devendra‟s case (Supra). For just decision in the matter, it would be appropriate to quote paragraphs 11 and 24 of the said judgment, which are as follows : “11. The fact that the appellants are co-sharers is not in dispute. The dispute between them is confined to the extent of their respective shares. It must be determined only in a civil suit. If Appellants 1 and 2 had executed a deed of sale in favour of a third party stating that they have one- third share over the entire properties, the same would not be binding on the respondent complainant. If any cause of action arose by reason of a Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13136 of 2008 (5) dt.24-02-2012 7 / 19 7 threat of dispossession at the hands of the co-sharer or at the hands of the third party, as was contended, recourse to legal action could always be taken. Even for that purpose, a proceeding under Sections 144 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be maintainable. The decision of a criminal court in a case of this nature would not be binding on the civil court.” “24. There is no dispute with regard to the aforementioned propositions of law. However, it is now well settled that the High Court ordinarily would exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the allegations Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13136 of 2008 (5) dt.24-02-2012 8 / 19 8 made in the first information report, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, do not make out any offence.

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.