IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53635 of 2007 ANIL SINGH @ MANTU SINGH, SON OF SRI DEVENDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SENUAR, P.S. AKNA, DISTRICT SARAN. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2(i)LAKHSMINA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE LALLAN MANJHI 2(ii)RAMESH KUMAR PASWAN 2(iii)VIKAS KUMAR PASWAN, BOTH SONS OF LATE LALLAN MANJHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SERUNKAHA, P.S. MASHRAK, DISTRICT SARAN. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** 7 10.12.2010 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2.6.2007, passed in Complaint Case No. 3118 of 2006 by which cognizance has been taken and summons have been issued to the petitioner. The allegations in the complaint case are that the petitioner who was a contractor working on behalf of the Reliance Company had gone to the house of the complainant and asked him to produce papers so that Reliance Tower could be installed on his land. It has been alleged that the petitioner asked for Rs. 40,000/- for recommending the installation of the Tower on the land of the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant was running a Chicken farm which he dismantled in order to accommodate the petitioner’s 2 Company which caused him a loss of Rs. 20,000/-. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner has installed the Tower on the land of Rajdeo Rai because he did not give him the said Rs. 40,000/-. Notices were issued in this case. However, the wife and sons who were substituted have not appeared to pursue this matter. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no case is made out under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence of cheating is defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. The provisions of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code envisages that the person committing the offence, should deceive another person, and fraudulently or dishonestly induce him to deliver any property to such person. On plain reading of the complaint petition it appears that neither did the complainant pay a single penny to the petitioner nor is there any ingredient of dishonesty involved in the so called complaint petition. Apparently, it has been stated on 3 affidavit that in fact the s aid Reliance Tower was erected on the land belonging to Rajdeo Rai which has constructed prior to filing of this present case. It appears that there is more than an element of vengeance, as the facts reveals that the case has been filed after construction of the Tower. All facts apart when the facts do not constitute an offence under the section alleged, I see no reason to allow this prosecution to proceed. In the result, the order dated 2.6.2007, passed in Complaint Case No. 3118 of 2006 is quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)