Amal Krishna Paul and Ors vs State Of Bihar and Anr
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46640 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010664752016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3681 Year-2015 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Purnia
======================================================
1. Amal Krishna Paul, Son of late Nalini Kant Paul, Resident of Mohalla and
P.S. Menaguri, District Jalpaiguri West Bengal.
2. Debyandu Pal
3. Subendu Pal @ Subendu Kumar Pal
4. Purnendu Pal, Sl. No. 2 to 4 are sons of late Nani Gopal Pal and are resident
of Mohalla- Khushki Bagh, P.S. Sadar, District Purnea. Presently residing at
Mohalla O.T. Para, Laliyahi, Kabra Khola, P.S. and District Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Subhash Das, Son of late Upanand Das, Resident of Mohalla- Khushki
Bagh, P.S. Sadar, District Purnea.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Indrajeet Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Bhaskar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Shasi Bhushan Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 13-10-2026
The present application has been filed for quashing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
2/21
of the order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI-cum-Sub Judge-VI, Purnea, in
Complaint Case No. 3681 of 2015, whereby the learned
Magistrate having found a prima facie case for the offences
punishable under Sections 406 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal
Code ( in short I.P.C. ) against the petitioners issued process for
their appearance to face trial.
2. The complainant, namely, Subhash Das, filed a
complaint case on 03.12.2015 in the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Purnea giving rise to Complaint Case No.
3681 of 2015, alleging commission of offences punishable
under Sections 406 and 120 (B) of the I.P.C. against the
petitioners. It is evident from the records that a dispute arose
between the parties in connection with a piece of land situated at
Khushkibagh, within the district of Purnea. The land in question
was claimed to be the property of the complainant's family, and
the arguments between the parties was entered into for the
purpose of transfer of the said land upon payment of the agreed
consideration.
It is alleged that the maternal uncle of the
complainant, petitioner no. 1, Amal Krishna Paul, along with
petitioner nos. 2 to 4, namely, Debyandu Pal, Subendu Pal and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
3/21
Purnendu Pal, entered into an agreement with the complainant
concerning the aforesaid land. According to the allegations
made in the complaint, on 17.02.2015, petitioners came to the
complainant's house at Khushkibagh and requested him to
execute the sale deed in respect of the land in question.
The complainant has alleged that, in the course of
the negotiation, the parties arrived at an arrangement whereby
the land was to be transferred for a consideration of Rs.
20,00,000/-. It is further that the complainant was requested to
receive an advance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and to execute the
sale deed upon fulfillment of the agreed conditions.
The complainant has asserted that a written
agreement was entered into between the parties on 17.02.2015
in connection with the transaction. The original agreement was
retained by the petitioners and that a photocopy thereof was
handed over to the complainant. It is the complainant's case that,
under the terms of the arrangement, the balance consideration
was to be paid within the stipulated period and the sale deed was
to be executed thereafter. In furtherance of the aforesaid
arrangement, the complainant was required to receive the
balance consideration and complete the transaction.
The complainant has asserted that the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
4/21
failed to honour the terms of the agreement and did not pay the
balance amount within the agreed period. Thereafter legal notice
were issued and the subsequent exchange of communications
between the parties concerning payment of the balance
consideration and execution of the sale deed. It is alleged that,
despite the complainant's demands, the petitioners failed to
complete the transaction in accordance with the terms of the
agreement.
On 13.05.2015, petitioner no. 2, in the presence of
petitioner no. 4, made a further payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the
complainant and obtained a receipt in respect thereof. The
complainant has, however, alleged that the petitioners did not
thereafter fulfill their remaining obligations under the agreement
and continued to withhold the balance consideration.
Thus, it is alleged that the petitioners failed to pay
the amount due despite demands and notices. As such, the
conduct of the petitioners amounted to cheating and
misappropriation of the amount paid in connection with the
transaction.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the
complainant instituted the complaint case no. 3681 of 2015
before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea alleging
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
5/21
that the petitioners had dishonestly induced him in connection
with the land transaction and had committed offences
punishable under Sections 406 and 120(B) of the I.P.C.
4. In course of enquiry, solemn affirmation of the
complainant as well as statement of enquiry witnesses were
recorded by the learned Court and upon consideration of the
complaint and the materials placed before him, the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI-cum-Sub Judge-VI,
Purnea passed the impugned order dated 30.05.2016 taking
cognizance of the offences under section 406 and 120(B) of the
I.P.C. and summon the petitioners for their appearance to face
trial.
5. Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned order is
unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the allegations made in the
complaint, even if accepted in their entirety, do not attract the
essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections
406 of the I.P.C.
6. It is submitted that the dispute between the
parties has arisen out of a transaction concerning immovable
property and the alleged non-fulfillment of the terms of an
agreement for sale. The nature of the dispute, according to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
6/21
petitioners, is essentially civil and contractual in nature and the
same cannot be converted into a criminal proceeding merely
because one of the parties alleges non-payment of the balance
consideration or non-performance of the agreement.
7. Learned counsel submits that the complaint
itself discloses the existence of an agreement between the
parties, the agreed consideration, the payment of amounts in
connection with the transaction and the subsequent exchange of
notices and communications concerning performance of the acts
with respect to agreement.
8. It is contended that the very existence of the
agreement and the subsequent dealings between the parties
demonstrate that the controversy relates to the performance of
contractual obligations. The alleged failure to pay the balance
consideration or to execute the sale deed, by itself, does not
establish that the petitioners had any fraudulent or dishonest
intention at the inception of the transaction.
9. He avers that the complaint does not disclose
any specific act of deception at the time when the agreement
was entered into. The subsequent failure to fulfill contractual
obligations cannot be treated as proof of an intention to cheat
existing from the inception of the transaction.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
7/21
10. He argues that the ingredients of criminal
breach of trust are not made out. The allegations relate to
payment and receipt of consideration in connection with a
proposed sale of land and that there is no specific allegation
demonstrating entrustment of property to the petitioners in the
manner contemplated under Section 405 of the I.P.C., followed
by dishonest misappropriation or conversion thereof.
11. It is, accordingly, submitted that the
continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an
abuse of the process of the Court and that the impugned order,
being founded upon allegations which do not disclose the
commission of the offences alleged, is fit to be quashed in
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short Cr.P.C. ).
12. Mr. Shasi Bhushan Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2, the complainant,
has opposed the application and supported the impugned order.
13. He submits that the complainant had entered
into the transaction with the petitioners on the basis of the
agreement dated 17.02.2015 and the assurances made by them
in connection with the proposed transfer of the land.
14. The petitioners in-spite of having received
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
8/21
amounts in connection with the transaction, failed to discharge
their obligations under the agreement, notwithstanding repeated
demands and issuance of legal notices.
15. Thus, the conduct of the petitioners, if
considered in the background of the transaction and the
subsequent failure to complete the sale, gives rise to the
allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust and as such
the matter ought to be allowed to proceed before the learned
Magistrate so that the allegations may be examined in
accordance with law.
16. It is contended that the existence of a civil
remedy would not, by itself, preclude the initiation or
continuance of criminal proceedings if the allegations also
disclose the commission of a criminal offence. Raising aforesaid
grounds, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no.
2 prays for dismissal of the present application.
17. Mr. Dilip Kumar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer for
quashing and has submitted that the impugned order has been
passed by the learned Magistrate upon consideration of the
complaint and the materials available before him. He submits
that at the stage of considering a prayer for quashing of criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
9/21
proceedings, the Court is not required to conduct a detailed
examination of the evidence or to undertake an assessment of
the respective claims of the parties, as would be required at the
stage of trial.
18. According to the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State, the question whether the allegations are
ultimately established is a matter to be considered by the
competent court, in accordance with law. It is, therefore,
submitted that the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. ought not to be exercised in a manner which would
prematurely terminate a criminal proceeding where the
allegations are alleged to disclose the commission of cognizable
offences.
19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records, the principal question which arises for
consideration in the present application is:-
“(i) Whether the allegations made in
the complaint, taken in their entirety and accepted
at their face value, disclose the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged against the
petitioners, and
(ii) Whether the continuance of the
criminal proceeding, arising essentially out of a
transaction concerning sale of immovable property
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
10/21
and non-fulfillment of the terms of an agreement,
would amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court.”
20. It is evident from the records that a dispute
arose between the parties in connection with a piece of land
situated at Khushkibagh, within the district of Purnea. The land
in question was claimed to be the property of the complainant's
family, and the agreement between the parties was entered into
for the purpose of transfer of the said land upon payment of the
agreed consideration.
21. In the backdrop of this kind of dispute between
the parties, it becomes germane and pertinent to consider as to
what are the ingredients for making out an offence punishable
under Section 406 of the I.P.C. which deals with the punishment
for criminal breach of trust, which has been defined under
Section 405 of the I.P.C.
22. Section 405 of the I.P.C. defines the offence of
‘criminal breach of trust’ which stipulates that:-
“ Section 405. Criminal breach of trust. —Whoever,
being in any manner entrusted with property, or
with any dominion over property, dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use that
property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that
property in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, or of any legal contract, express or
implied, which he has made touching the discharge
of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
11/21
to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.”
(Note:- Explanation 1 & 2 of Section 405 is not
relevant for the purpose of this case.)
The offence under Section 405 of the I.P.C. is made
punishable under Section 406 of the I.P.C. which reads as
follows :-
“406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both.”
Thus, for Section 406 of the I.P.C. to get attracted,
there must be a criminal breach of trust in terms of Section 405
of the I.P.C. The essential ingredients for invoking Section 405
of the I.P.C. are enumerated hereunder :-
“(a) the accused was entrusted with property, or
entrusted with dominion over property;
(b) the accused had dishonestly misappropriated or
converted to their own use that property, or
dishonestly used or disposed of that property or
wilfully suffer any other person to do so; and
(c) such misappropriation, conversion, use or
disposal should be in violation of any direction of
law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, or of any legal contract which the
person had made, touching the discharge of such
trust.
In other words, for the invocation of the offence of
criminal breach of trust, it is expedient that the use
of disposal of the property is made by a persons
entrusted with or who has dominion over the
property. Furthermore, such an act must not only be
done dishonestly but also in violation of any
direction of law or any contract, express or implied,
relating to carrying out the trust.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
12/21
As per Black’s Law Dictionary , the definition of
the term “ Entrustment ” means to give (a person),
responsibility for something, usually after establishing a
confidential relationship.
23. In the context of Section 406 of the I.P.C.
proceedings of any criminal prosecution may be quashed if the
complaint or F.I.R., even if taken at the face value, does not
disclose the essential ingredients of the offence. A clear absence
of allegations regarding entrustment or dishonest
misappropriation can be a ground for quashing.
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi),
Department of Home and Anr. , as reported in (2019) 11 SCC
706 , emphasized the need to ascertain if the facts make out an
offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C.
25. Section 406 of the I.P.C. prescribes the
punishment for the offences of criminal breach of trust. This
provision plays a crucial role in upholding fiduciary relationship
and ensuring accountability for the misappropriation of property
entrusted to another. Criminal breach of trust, as defined under
Section 405 of the I.P.C., is a nuanced offence, requiring a
careful examination of the elements of entrustment, dishonest
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
13/21
misappropriation and the violation of legal or contractual duties.
26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while discussing
the expression "entrustment" in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh
Kumar Bhada reported in (1997) 2 SCC 397 , observed that it
carries with it the implication that the person handing over any
property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to
another, continues to be its owner. Entrustment is not
necessarily a term of law. It may have different implications in
different contexts. In its most general significance, all its
imports is handing over the possession for some purpose which
may not imply the conferment of any proprietary right therein.
The ownership or beneficial interest in the property in respect of
which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been
committed, must be in some person other than the accused and
the latter must hold it on account of some person or in some
way for his benefit.
27. This definition of entrustment given in Rashmi
Kumar (supra) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada has been affirmed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Jain Vs.
State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 998 .
28. Thus, for invocation of offence criminal
breach of trust, it is expedient that the use or disposal of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
14/21
property is made by a person entrusted with or who has
dominion over the property. Furthermore, such an act must not
only be done dishonestly but also in violation of any direction of
law or any contract, expressed or implied, relating to carrying
out the trust. In other words, entrustment of any property and a
subsequent dishonest misappropriation or conversion to once
use, are the sine qua non or making out an offence of criminal
breach of trust as laid down under Section 405 of the I.P.C.
29. In Binod Kumar Vs State of Bihar (2014) 10
SCC 663 , it has been held as follows:-
“……….. To make out a case of
criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show
that money has been retained by the appellants. It
must also be shown that appellants dishonestly
disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly
retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants
did not pay the money to the complainant does not
amount to criminal breach of trust.”
30. In the Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors.
Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168 , it has
been held that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to
criminal prosecution, unless a fraudulent and dishonest intention
of the accused is proved from the very inception of the
transaction. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as
follows:-
“15. In determining the question it
has to be kept in mind that the distinction between
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
15/21
mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating
is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the
accused at the time of inducement which may be
judged by his subsequent conduct but for this
subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach
of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution
for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention
is shown right at the beginning of the transaction,
that is the time when the offence is said to have been
committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the
gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of
cheating it is necessary to show that he had
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of
making the promise. From his mere failure to keep
up promise subsequently such a culpable intention
right at the beginning, that is, when he made the
promise cannot be presumed."
31. The aforesaid dictum reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Kaur & Ors. Vs. Jagnar
Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 wherein it was
held:-
“……… It was held between the
parties essentially a civil dispute relating resulting
from a breach on contract on the part of the
appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance,
the same would not constitute an offence of cheating
or criminal breach of trust.”
32. In the present case, main dispute between the
parties appears to be non-execution of registered deed of sale
pursuant to an agreement dated 17.02.2015 and consequent non-
refund of the amount of advance taken by the petitioners. The
petitioners, who are owners of the land, which they acquired
through the registered deed of sale, agreed to sale this land to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
16/21
the complainant for which an agreement was entered into
between the parties on 17.02.2015 and in lieu thereof they
received amount of Rs. 5 lakhs from the complainant. The
balance amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was to be paid by the
complainant which he failed to pay.
33. In terms of the stipulations of the agreement:-
(i) Complainant was to pay Rs. 5 lakhs till
30.04.2015 and remaining Rs. 10 lakhs till 30.08.2015;
(ii) He did not pay the amount so the sale deed was
not executed in his favour;
(iii) On 11.09.2015, petitioners sent a legal notice
to the complainant stating inter alia therein that if he fails to pay
balance amount of Rs. 15 lakhs and get the sale deed executed
within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice, his advance
amount paid to the petitioners, will stand forfeited;
(iv) The complainant failed to perform his part of
contract by paying the balance amount within the stipulated
time.
34. In this backdrop, the complainant instituted the
present complaint case against the petitioners for not executing
sale deed, in-spite of, having received advance amount. From
the complaint petition as well as solemn affirmation of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
17/21
complainant and statement of enquiry witnessees it becomes
evident that whatever amount paid as advance to the petitioners,
was paid in cash and for non-performance of the terms of
agreement by way of registering sale deed in favour of the
complainant, the present complaint case has been instituted.
35. The dispute is primarily and essentially appears
to be civil in nature as for non-performance of any part of
contract or agreement, the complainant could have approached
the competent court of civil jurisdiction, for specific
performance of the contract, against the petitioners but instead
of resorting to the proper legal recourse available to the
complainant, he chose a shortcut by lodging a criminal case to
exert undue pressure on the petitioners with allegations, the bare
perusal of which, does not reflect, making out any kind of
criminal offence much less the offence under Section 406 of the
I.P.C.
36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has regularly been
cautioning the High Courts or the Subordinate Courts of being
vigilant with respect to the nature of dispute being brought
before it for initiation of criminal prosecution. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has also taken note of the fact that on account of
purely civil dispute of commercial nature, violation of the terms
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
18/21
of the agreement, non-performance of the contractual
obligations, there is a surge of civil disputes being given a
criminal flavour. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs.
NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 :-
"13. While on this issue, it is
necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in
business circles to convert purely civil disputes into
criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a
prevalent impression that civil law remedies are
time consuming and do not adequately protect the
interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is
seen in several family disputes also, leading to
irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families.
There is also an impression that if a person could
somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution,
there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any
effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do
not involve any criminal offence, by applying
pressure through criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged.”
37. Further in the case of G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v.
State of U.P. & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 636 , in paragraph 8 and 14:-
"8. It is to be seen if a matter, which
is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a
cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are
not a short cut of other remedies available in law.
Before issuing process a criminal court has to
exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it
is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain
principles on the basis of which the High Court is to
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be
exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
14. While no one with a legitimate
cause or grievance should be prevented from
seeking remedies available in criminal law, a
complainant who initiates or persists with a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
19/21
prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal
proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies
only in civil law, should himself be made
accountable, at the end of such misconceived
criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One
positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb
unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of
innocent parties, is to exercise their power under
Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they
discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives
on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may."
38. The aforesaid proposition of law with respect
to giving criminal colour to the dispute, which are essentially
and primarily civil in nature, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of G. Saminathan & Anr. Vs. State represented by the
Sub-Inspector of Police & Anr. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine
SC 1460 , has approved and reiterated the same .
39. Thus, in this conspectus of factual legal
background, I find it expedient to refer to the judgment in the
case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
enumerated the categories of cases warranting the exercise of
extraordinary judicial powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. by the Courts either to prevent abuse of the
process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The
relevant paragraph 102 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
“102. In the backdrop of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
20/21
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 have given 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 formulate and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be excercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in
the first information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their fact value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(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 any offence and make
out a case against the accused.
(5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person
can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(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 account and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
40. Thus, I find that the categories (1), (3), (5) and
(7) enlisted in Bhajan Lal (supra) case squarely applicable to
the facts of the present case, making it a fit case for quashing of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46640 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
21/21
the criminal proceedings pending against the accused persons.
41. Thus, the questions, as framed in the preceding
paragraph No. 19, are answered as follows:-
Question No. (i) - Answered in Negative ; and
Question No. (ii) - Answered in Affirmative .
42. Ex consequenti, the order dated 30.05.2016
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI-
cum-Sub Judge-VI, Purnea in Complaint Case No. 3681 of 2015
is hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners and all
criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are also quashed and
set aside with respect to the petitioners.
43. Accordingly, this application stands allowed in
the aforesaid terms.
44. All pending interlocutory applications(s), if
any, stands disposed of.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Rakesh/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 24.07.2026
Uploading Date 18.10.2026
Transmission Date 18.10.2026