Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38868 of 2008 (3) dt.16-01-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.38868 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Lukho Pd.Yadav @ Lakshman Prasad Yadav .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.State Of Bihar 2.Yaspal Singh .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dronacharya For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Om Prakash Prasad For the State : Mrs. Veena Kumari Jaiswal,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA) 3 16-01-2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 5.6.2008 passed in Khagaria P.S. case No. 11 of 2007 ( G.R. No. 35 of 2007) by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, taking cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] . It appears that on the basis of the complaint petition of Opposite party No.2, Yaspal Singh, filed against his mother Amrit Kaur, one brother Hari Charan Singh and petitioner Lukho Pd. Yadav alias Lakshman Prasad Yadav, as sent under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Khagaria P.s. case No. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38868 of 2008 (3) dt.16-01-2012 11 of 2007, was registered under [STATUTE] . The Police on investigation submitted charge-sheet against Amrit Kaur, Hari Charan Singh and Lakshman Yadav under [STATUTE] . The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on perusal of the charge-sheet as well as case diary took the cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] against accused Hari Charan Singh and petitioner Lakshamn Yadav alias Lukho Pd. Yadav. It is alleged by the Informant Opposite party No.2 that the house in question situated at Station Road was purchased by him his brother and father in the year 1981 in the name of his mother, accused no.1 Amrit Kaur, so that any dispute may not arise in between the brothers. After purchase of the said house, he and his brothers residing first floor of the house. He and his brother have shop in the ground floor towards the road and his mother accused no.1 Amrit Kaur, was residing in the back portion of shops in ground floor. In the year 1999, his father died, and thereafter dispute arose in between the brother due to instigation of his mother, accused no.1 Amrit Kaur. In that course his one brother Satnam Singh started to run wine shop in the house then protest was made. In that course accused- Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38868 of 2008 (3) dt.16-01-2012 petitioner Lukho Pd. Yadav alias Lakshman Prasad Yadav came in touch of his mother Amrit Kaur, who was of bad character and started giving threatening. Ultimately Opposite party no.2 filed Partition Suit No. 03 of 2006 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ist, Khagaria which is going on. After knowing about the said suit the accused-persons approached him and his other brothers for partition of the house on paper in that course accused-petitioner Lukho Pd. Yadav alias Lakshman Prasad Yadav was selected as Punch by Opposite party no.2 and his brothers. Inspite of approaching to accused-petitioner No. 3 the Pancyati, the Panchyati could not held. Lastly accused No.1 Amrit Kaur mother of Opposite party No.2 sold the house without considerationt of the accused-petitioner Lukho Prasad alias Lakshman. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that from the avermentof the complaint petition, which is the basis of the First Information Report, it would appear that the dispute is of civil nature, as such on the basis of that fact taking cognizance of the offence through the impugned order dated 5.6.2008 under [STATUTE] which is completely abuse of the process of the Court. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38868 of 2008 (3) dt.16-01-2012 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite party no.2 made submission that the learned Magistrate has rightly took cognizance of the offence on perusal of the materials in the case diary. As such there is no illegality in the impugned order. From perusal of the complaint petition of Opposite party No.2 which is the basis of Khagaria P.S. case No. 11 of 2007 it appears that the house in dispute is said to be purchased by the complainant Opposite party No.2, his brother and father in the name of accused no.1 Amrit Kaur, mother of Opposite party no.2. Accused no.1 Amrit Kaur mother of Opposite party No.2 sold the house in dispute to accused-petitioner on 22.9.2000 without consideration. Admittedly the house in question was in the name of accused no.1 Amrit Kaur ( since deceased), who is the mother of Opposite party no.2 who sold the house to accused-petitioner. The dispute appears to be pure civil in nature and the interest of the Opposite party No.2 claiming the share in the house in dispute could be adequately protected in civil suit. As such allowing the criminal proceeding by taking cognizance of the offence through impugned orders appears to be completely abuse of process of law. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38868 of 2008 (3) dt.16-01-2012 impugned order dated 5.6.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Khagaria P.S. case No. 11 of 2007 is quashed and this application is allowed. Arun Kumar/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

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.