IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25558 of 2009 Mrs. Muniba Sami, wife of Dr. Shankar Datta, resident of A-18, Budha Colony, PS Budha Colony, District patna – petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Law & Justice Department, Bihar. 2. Vishnu Agrawal, son of Sri Jaideo Agrawal, residing at Flat No. 404, Abhishek Plaza, Exhibition Road, PS Gandhi Maidan, Patna – opp. parties. … For the petitioner : Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A. P. P. For opp. party no.2 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur and Mr. Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocates. 2 25.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 2.6.2009 passed by the judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, patna in Complaint Case No. 224©/2009 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Penal Code. The complainant claims to have entered into agreement with the builder for purchasing a flat in Bansal Tower at Bhattacharjee Road and was allotted Flat no. 503. It is the case of the complainant that he fell ill in 2000 and thereafter he was not able to approach the builder for taking possession / making payment of the entire amount for Flat No. 503 in Bansal Tower. The builder was developing another property at S.P. Verma Road and had built a multi storied building known as Saket Tower. It is said that the complainant was allotted Flat No. 604 in Saket Tower at S.P. Verma Road. The complainant claims that he had made renovations of the entire Flat no. 604 in Saket Tower at S.P. Verma Road but was later told that the flat fell in the share of the Land holder. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the Land holder has 2 been made accused claiming that the land holder found that the Flat was very good and, therefore she opted for Flat No. 604. The dispute, if any, is with the builder and the purchaser. As far as Land holder is concerned, she has not entered into any agreement with the complainant nor has she received any money from him nor can it be said that she has committed any act which may come under the purview of sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Penal Code. Even if it is accepted that the Land holder had opted for Flat No. 604, it is difficult to believe that she was aware of the construction and repair, if any, that was taking place in Saket Tower. It is also unbelievable that the builder would have allotted a flat to the Land holder when he knew very well that he had handed over possession of the flat to the complainant. As far as land holder is concerned, it appears to be a completely frivolous complaint. I do not find that the land holder can be held responsible for criminal breach of trust as there was no entrustment of the property in question or cheating as there is no dispute about the fact that she was entitled to a certain amount of share in the building concerned or for that matter an offence which would come under the heading of conspiracy. Accordingly the order impugned taking cognizance is quashed so far it concerns this petitioner. This application is allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)