SUSHIL KUMAR SINHA vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19294 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2217 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Sushil Kumar Sinha S/O Late Laxmi Datta Qualiyar, Resident Of Patna
Collectoriate, Bar Association, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Satyadev Chaudhary S/o Sri Shivdayal Chaudhary Resident of Mohalla-
Indrapuri, Road No.3A/71, P.S.-Patliputra, District-Patna
3. Vijay Bahadur Singh S/o Sri Lal Babu Singh Resident of Mohalla-Indrapuri,
Road No.3A/71, P.S.-Patliputra, District-Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Awadhesh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-07-2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. Present petition preferred by the petitioner
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
Cr.P.C.) for quashing of order dated 20.01.2017, passed by
learned Sub Judge XIV cum A.C.J.M, Patna, in Complaint
P.S. Case no. 2217(C) of 2016.
3. As per complaint, the petitioner who is an
advocate practicing in Patna Civil Court extended his
professional service for drafting of sale deed which was
typed by one Sunil Kr. Yadav and with this much allegation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19294 of 2019 dt.14-07-2026
2/5
this petitioner was made an accused in complaint as the
land, in issue which was subject of deal, later on found
already sold to someone else.
4. The notice was issued to O.P. No. 2, which was
received by his grandson and thus it deemed validly served
upon.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner implicated with present crime in question
only for the reason as he extended his professional service
for drafting the sale deed being advocate. It is submitted
that except this limited allegation no allegation is available
against petitioner and as such no case is made out against
this petitioner. It is also submitted that none of the
witnesses during enquiry named this petitioner despite of
that cognizance was taken by ld. Trial court against
petitioner in very mechanical manner.
6. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel relied
upon paragraph no. 102 of the Apex Court decision in the
case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and
Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19294 of 2019 dt.14-07-2026
3/5
Cases 335, which reads as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise
of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive
list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first informant report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of nay offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach
a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19294 of 2019 dt.14-07-2026
4/5
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
7. It would be apposite to reproduce the paragraph
no. 6 of complaint petition which is as under:-
यहककअकभयुकतगणएवंपकरवादीगणनेएकरकजसट्रीका
“6.
कागातपटनाकलेकट्रेकरयटमेजाकरअकभयुकतोकेकथनानुसार
अकधवकताशुशीलकुमारकसनहाकेदाराकदनांक 20.06.2011 को
तैयारकरवायाएवंअकभयुकतसुकनलकुमारयादवनेउस
रकजसट्रीकेकागजकोटंकनकरवायाऔरपकरवादीनेदोलाख
पैतीसहजाररपयाअरकवनदकसहकोभुगतानककयाऔर
अरकवनदकसंहनेरकजसट्रीकेकागजपररपयाप्राकपतकेबाद
बायेअंगुठेकाकनशानबनाकदयातथाअकभयुकतरामबाबुकसंहने
अरकवनदकसंहकापहचानककयाऔरअकभयुकतदेवेनद्रकुमारपर
अपनाहसताकरककया।गवाहकेरपमेउसरकजसट्रीकेकागज
उसरकजसट्रीकेकागजकाफोटोकॉपीसंलगनककयागयाजो
ककअनुलगनक I है। ”
8. It also appears that during enquiry only
aforesaid allegation was disclosed by complainant, whereas
rest of the two enquiry witnesses, EW 1 and EW 2 even
failed to name this petitioner.
9. Learned APP could not disputed the aforesaid
factual submission.
10. In view of aforesaid as petitioner was alleged
to draft sale deed in capacity of advocate, where land, in
issue, was found disputed later on, this Court is of view that
no case is made out against this petitioner, in view of
Bhajan Lal case (supra) .
11. In view of aforesaid and by taking note of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19294 of 2019 dt.14-07-2026
5/5
golden principles no. 1, 2 and 3 of Bhajan Lal case
(supra) the cognizance order qua petitioner dated
20.01.2017 stands quashed/ set aside.
12. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
learned trial court forthwith.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.07.2026
Transmission Date 15.07.2026