AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 06-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.
The instant application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 02.05.2017 passed in Tr.No. 1177 of 2017 arising out of complaint case no. 549 (C) of 2017 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VI, Bhojpur, Ara whereby he took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under sections 406, 420, 323, 387 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution, the complainant was approached by the accused persons for purchase of land. Co-accused Mangal Rai negotiated the deal and one Ajay Chaudhary executed a sale deed on 01.06.2015. Thereafter, Mangal Rai agreed to sell his land and allegedly received Rs. 4,46,000/- in cash and Rs. 1,20,000/- through cheque from the complainant. It has further been alleged that the petitioner and co-accused Arvind Kumar Singh fraudulently transferred the land belonging to a fake owner in favour of the complainant using forged documents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is not an executant to the agreement for sale, while the executant to the agreement for sale is co-accused Mangal Rai and as per the admission of the complainant made in the complaint, the entire money was paid to the co-accused Mangal Rai and not to this petitioner, while the executant to the sale deed was also co-accused Mangal Rai. As per the allegation, although the petitioner is alleged to have taken money and a forged agreement was executed by the co-accused it appears to be self-contradictory when the complainant has stated that the entire money was paid to co-accused Mangal Rai either by way of cash or in his own account. It has further been submitted that the dispute, if any, is civil in nature, moreover, the allegation primarily of civil nature has been given the colour of criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and submitted that the prosecution against the petitioner is vexatious and malicious in nature and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, has referred to paragraph 8 thereof and submitted that even if there is a civil remedy, a criminal case can be lodged. It has further been submitted that there is allegation of deception against the petitioner.
Heard the parties and perused the records.
From the allegation itself, it is apparent that the entire money was either given by way of cash or credited directly into the account of co-accused Mangal Rai. There is also an allegation of forceful signature on certain papers but the said papers have not been converted into valuable security. In the case of Mala Chaudhary Vs. State of Telangana reported in 2025 INSC 870 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that failure to honour a staggered payment plan or execute a sale deed does not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust unless dishonest intention existed at the inception of the agreement. The facts of the case reveal that the entire money have been taken by the co-accused Mangal Rai and he being the signatory to the agreement, petitioner has no role to play.
Considering the facts and circumstances in totality, the order taking cognizance dated 02.05.2017 is hereby quashed with respect to the present petitioner only.
Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
Registry is hereby directed to send the trial court records to the learned Court below for trial of other co-accused persons.