SANOJ KUMAR DAS vs THE STATE OF BIHAR

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55440 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1747 Year-2021 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria
======================================================
Sanoj Kumar Das S/O Late Jyotish Chandra Das Resident Of Village-
Bengali, Tola, Ward No. 24, Farbesganj, Ps- Farbesganj, Dist- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Gautam Son Of Sunil Kumar Singh Resident Of Brajesh Kumar Mehta,
Power House Road, Sangram Tola, Ps- Farbesganj, Dist- Araria, Permanent
Address C/O Sunil Kumar Singh Hanuman Nagar, Back Of S.P. Kothi, Ps-
K. Hat, Dist- Purnea
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Rajeev, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
For O.P. No. 2 Mr. R.P. N. Tiwari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the
State.
2. Present application has been filed for quashing the
st
order 05.01.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class,
Araria in Complaint Case No. 1747 of 2021 whereby
cognizance has been taken under Sections 120B, 406, 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was the successful bidder of the auction conducted by
the Bank of Baroda of the mortgaged property which was a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55440 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
2/6
residential house and he had paid the entire auction amount of
Rs. 67,49,000/- to the Bank after confirmation of sale, pursuant
to which the Bank issued sale certificate in favour of the
petitioner. It has further been submitted that the said auction
was done on the basis of valuation report of the valuer which
was never challenged by the complainant/opposite party no. 2. It
is further submitted that the petitioner had purchased the said
property by quoting the highest bid amount and the allegation
that he was the single bidder appears to be baseless as the
mandatory notice with respect to such auction was in the public
domain.
4. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that as a matter of fact, the complainant i.e.
opposite party no. 2 had taken loan from the Bank and upon
failure to repay, he had filed a writ petition before this Court
undertaking to make payment according to stipulated schedule
which he failed to pay, as such, the writ as well as Letters Patent
Appeal preferred by him were both dismissed. It has been
brought to light that all the issues regarding under valuation of
the mortgaged property before the Debt Recovery Tribunal was
also raised in the writ proceedings before this Court.
5.It is thus submitted that since opposite party no. 2

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55440 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
3/6
was a defaulter in payment of loan, the property was auction
sold following the prescribed norms and procedure.
6.Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out
that the similarly situated co-accused persons being the Bank
Officials and more especially, the Valuer of the property, had
also approached this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 42616 of 2023
and Cr. Misc. No. 57351 of 2023 and after detailed
consideration of all the facts and circumstances, the order taking
cognizance dated 05.01.2023 as against them was quashed by a
coordinate Bench of this Court, finding that no prima facie case
was made out under Sections 406 and 409 of the IPC and
alternative civil remedies were available to the opposite party
no. 2.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2,
however, vehemently opposes the present application by
supporting the allegations made in the complaint and also by
virtue of the fact that the petitioner acted in conspiracy with the
other Bank Officials and the Valuer in becoming the successful
bidder of the said property on an under valued amount, as the
valuer described the property as residential instead of
commercial. It has further been pointed out that the opposite
party no. 2 has moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the said

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55440 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
4/6
matter and has put the valuation report under question.
8. Upon hearing the rival contentions of the parties, it
would appear that the petitioner being successful bidder of the
e-auction, purchased the property in question after payment of
the entire auction amount of Rs. 67,49,000/-. So far as
allegations of under valuation is concerned, it totally falls within
the domain of the valuer and the petitioner has absolutely no
role to play in the said process. Moreover, the opposite party no.
2 has already taken recourse to alternative remedies which are
available to him before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is also
well settled that criminal prosecution cannot substitute such
alternative civil remedies as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R.
Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2025
INSC 869 . The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Urmila Devi
& Ors. Vs. Balram & Anr . reported in 2025 INSC 915 , in
paragraph no. 8.6 has also held as under:
“8.6. It is writ large on the face of the record that the
complaint case has been employed as a circuitous tool
to abuse the process of law, especially after the
complainant-respondent failed to pursue the remedies
available to it.”
9. It also needs to be taken into consideration that the
complaint, taken at its face value, fails to disclose any criminal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55440 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
5/6
offence as against the petitioner, much less the offence as
alleged. As such, the case of the petitioner also gets squarely
covered by the first category of the categories of the cases
enumerated in the case of State of State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal , reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , illustrating the cases
where power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends
of justice. Category I reads as under:
“ 102 ……...
(1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
…..”
10. It is further noticed that the order impugned qua
the other co-accused, including the valuer, has already been
quashed vide order dated 01.05.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
42616 of 2023 and Cr. Misc. No. 57351 of 2023, and the case of
the petitioner stands on a much better footing. On the basis of
foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the
order taking cognizance and issuance of summons dated
05.01.2023 cannot be legally sustained against this petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
st
05.01.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Araria in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55440 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
6/6
Complaint Case No. 1747 of 2021 is hereby quashed and the
application stands allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 17.07.2026
Transmission Date 17.07.2026