Sima Kumari vs State Of Bihar and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53668 of 2017
CNR No. BRHC010519262017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2111 Year-2013 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Sima Kumari W/o Nand Lal Prasad Resident of Mohalla- GrihandaJakhraj
Asthan, P.S. Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Raja Ram Singh S/o late Karu Singh Resident of Mohalla- Mahatma Gandhi
Nagar, near Budha Dental College, P.O. Lohia, Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar,
District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anisur Rahman, Advocate
For the Opposite Party State: Mr. S.M. Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-10-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State. However, there is no representation on
behalf of O.P. No.2.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking
quashing of the impugned order dated 12.08.2014, passed by the
st
learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No.
2111(C) of 2013, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the
offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been taken
against the petitioner.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
complainant, a power of attorney holder, entered into a registered

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53668 of 2017 dt.29-10-2026
2/5
agreement for sale of land with the petitioner on a consideration
amount of Rs.14 lakhs per katha and at the time of the execution of
the agreement, the petitioner paid Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash and
through cheque. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner issued
two cheques in favour of the complainant amounting to
Rs.4,80,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively, which got
dishonoured on being presented for encashment. It has further
been alleged that the complainant thereafter sent legal notice to the
petitioner, but the money was not paid to her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned
counsel for the petitioner, referring to Section 142(b) of the N.I.
Act, has submitted that the complaint was filed much beyond the
statutory period of one month from the date on which the cause of
action arose.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to
certain dates, which are relevant for the just decision of the case.
Firstly, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
cheques, in question, were issued on 09.01.2011. The Memo by
the Bank was issued on 06.11.2012. The legal notice was sent on
19.12.2012 and the present complaint came to be filed on
19.06.2013.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53668 of 2017 dt.29-10-2026
3/5
4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, thus,
submitted that in view of the statutory bar to take cognizance in
the matter, the present case against the petitioner would amount to
an abuse of the process of the court.
4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted, relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar , reported in (2009)
8 SCC 751 , that no offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made
out in the facts and circumstances of the case as the dispute
primarily is of civil nature, which has been given colour of
criminal cloak and the order taking cognizance under Section 420
of the IPC and under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is bad in law and
on facts.
4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
referred to paragraph 102 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , reported in
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , and has submitted that the case of the
petitioner falls under various categories as discussed in paragraph
102 of the said judgment. Moreover, the present prosecution
against the petitioner is malicious and vexatious one.
4.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
referred to another judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the
case of Dr. Geetha Vs. Vasanthi S. Shetty , reported in 2010 Crl

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53668 of 2017 dt.29-10-2026
4/5
LJ 2698:2010 SCC OnLine Kar 28 , and has referred to
paragraph 22 thereof, which is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“ 22. As noticed above, after the complainant
received information from her Banker on 13.01.2003 about
the return of the cheque, cause-of-action for issue of notice
began to run. As per the law that existed on that day, she
was required to issue notice, within 15 days, which expired
on 28.01.2003. On account of the inaction on the part of
the complainant in not issuing notice of demand within 15
days from the date of the receipt of the information from her
Banker about the return of the cheque, she had lost her
right to file a compliant for an offence under Section 138 of
the Act, as there was no demand in writing made by her to
the drawer of the cheque as required by law. Unless such a
demand had been made and unless an opportunity had been
afforded to the drawer of the cheque, the offence was not
complete. Therefore, the complainant had no right to
present a complaint. The amendment brought into force
from 06.02.2003 did not give her a right to issue a notice of
demand in respect of dishonouring of the cheque on
09.01.2003, which was intimated to her on 13.01.2003.
Therefore, the complaint lodged was defective and the
Learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the
offence alleged. In this view of the matter, the judgment of
the Learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the accused is just
and proper.”
4.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly
submitted that the continuation of the present proceeding against
the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53668 of 2017 dt.29-10-2026
5/5
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner.
6. Heard the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
as discussed above, and in view of the statutory bar under Section
142 of the N.I. Act and also in view of the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, as discussed above, the present
prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the
process of the court.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance
st
dated 12.08.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1
Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 2111(C) of 2013, with respect
to the petitioner only, is hereby quashed.
9. However, proceeding against the co-accused person
may continue.
10. The application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Pawan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 30.10.2026.
Transmission Date 30.10.2026.