RANJEET KUMAR vs THE STATE OF BIHAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49510 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2016 Thana- HATHIDAH District- Patna
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar son of late premchand prasad resident of village - Mustafapur,
P.O. and P.S.- Khagaul, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Arun Kumar Singh Son of Late Kapildeo Singh Resident of Village and
P.O.- Jamalpur, P.S.- Atmalgola, presently R/O Girja Nand Prasad Singh,
village - Mahindrapur, P.O. and P.S.- Hathideh, District - Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Adv.
Ms. Sushmita Sharma, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-07-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the F.I.R. of Hathidah
P.S. Case No. 61 of 2016 (G.R. No. 1403 of 2016) dated
07.09.2016 registered for the offences under Section(s) 406/420
IPC and under Section 138 N.I. Act pending before the concerned
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh.
3. The records show that notices were issued to the O.P.
No. 2. Notices were validly served, still there is no appearance on
behalf of the complainant. The court on the last occasion vide
Order No. 3 dated 15.06.2026 recorded that the complainant had
already received notice on 16.05.2026 and two weeks time was
granted awaiting the appearance of O.P. No. 2. Today also there is
no appearance on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49510 of 2019 dt.09-07-2026
2/4
4. As per the FIR, the complainant Arun Kumar Singh
states that one Ranjeet Kumar had taken the work in Railway as a
petty contractor. He says that this work was of the value of Rs.
42,80,000/- and that was done by four partners and it was recorded
in the agreement that the entire money is being invested by these
four partners and Ranjeet Kumar had not invested a single penny
in it. When the work was finished, the security money of Rs.
21,41,000/- and the entire amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- fell due
against the complainant. Thereafter, he states that two cheques
bearing no. 132665 and 132662 were issued in the name of his son
Kanhaiya Kumar on 29.02.2016 for miscellaneous expenses and
cheque no. 132661 and 132663 dated 29.02.2016 were issued in
the name of Amar Kumar for the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. All the
cheques were bounced. On demand, he alleges, the petitioner
refused to pay.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that there
was an agreement dated 08.07.2010. A bare perusal of the
agreement would show that there was an agreement between
Ranjeet Kumar, the petitioner and first party, who had been
awarded the contract, on the one side, and Arun Kumar Singh and
three others on the other. In terms of the agreement a joint account
was to be opened in any nationalised bank and operated with joint

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49510 of 2019 dt.09-07-2026
3/4
signatures and depositing, transferring and drawing the payment
made by Railway concerned.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that no such
joint account came into existence and the entire work was
essentially done by the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
Section 142 of the Act requires a complaint under Section 138 of
N.I. Act to be made by the payee or by the holder in due course.
The payees are Kanhaiya Kumar and Amar Kumar but the case has
been filed by Arun Kumar Singh. The same makes the complaint
incompetent.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
in terms of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
N. Harihara Krishnan vs. J. Thomas reported in 2017 SCC
OnLine SC 1017 followed by this Court in Hemant Kumar Das
and Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Criminal Miscellaneous No.
905 of 2018) it has been specifically held that the entire scheme of
N.I. Act excludes even the idea of filing an FIR or making over a
complaint to the police under Section 156(3).
9. So far as Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code are concerned, the allegations read as a whole disclose a
dispute arising out of a joint contract for railway work and the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49510 of 2019 dt.09-07-2026
4/4
accounting of money said to have fallen due on its completion.
There is no averment that the petitioner induced the complainant to
part with any property by a dishonest representation made at the
inception, nor any entrustment of property to the petitioner which
he is said to have misappropriated. The dispute is in its true
character contractual. The mere addition of Sections 406 and 420
does not convert a claim founded on an agreement and on
dishonoured cheques into a cognizable offence. The offence, if
any, that the allegations disclose is the dishonour of the cheques,
which falls squarely and only within Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
10. In such view of the matter, the FIR of Hathidah P.S.
Case No. 61 of 2016 (G.R. No. 1403 of 2016) under Sections
406/420 IPC and under Section 138 N.I. Act dated 07.09.2016
pending before the concerned Court, Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Barh, is hereby quashed.
11. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
sakshi/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date