IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4578 of 2010 1. SUNIL KUMAR S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA RAI R/O VILL.- SENDUARI, P.S.-….. DISTT.- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAND KISHORE DUBEY S/O RAM NARESH DUBEY R/O VILL.- NONIA, P.S.- SISWAN, DISTT.- SIWAN ----------- 03. 10.03.2011 The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 02.06.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 2337 of 2008 by which cognizance has been taken by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur, Vaishali under Section 417/34 IPC. The case of the complainant is that he had entered into an agreement with accused No. 6, Parmanand Thakur for running a brick kiln on his land. Since the complainant was in need of money he sublet the work to one Arjun Kumar with whom subsequently a dispute arose and a case was instituted. It is further alleged that the accused Nos. 5 and 7 taking advantage of this situation entered into another lease deed with petitioner despite there being an earlier lease deed between the complainant and the accused No. 1 for a period of 21 years. After the witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr. P.C. cognizance was taken but in the order only accused Nos. 1 to 6 were mentioned. As against the said order the complainant moved the Revisional Court which remanded the case to the Magistrate for a further inquiry in the matter. The Magistrate without holding a further inquiry took cognizance since the complainant submitted that he was not 2 ready to produce any more witnesses, on the same materials, this time also finding the petitioner and one other Kunal Kumar accused. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from the bare narrative of the complaint itself no offence whatsoever is made out against any of the accused persons much less against the petitioner, since all that the complainant has alleged that at best there was a breach in agreement between the parties which would not come within the purview of a criminal case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that subsequent lease deed with the petitioner was in violation of the terms of the earlier lease deed and, therefore, a clear case of cheating is made out. Considering the facts of the case as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, in my opinion, no criminal offence whatsoever is made out against any of the accused persons since at best the only allegation contained in the complaint is that one of the accused persons entered into a subsequent agreement with the petitioner while the first one was subsisting which by no stretch of imagination can be a criminal offence. In view of such, the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2337 of 2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Vaishali at Hajipur is, hereby, set aside. The application stands allowed. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)