Dinesh Maheshwari @ Dinesh vs State Of Bihar & Anr.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Even after valid service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2

The petitioner has filed this application for the quashing of the order dated 18.07.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 4132-C of 2013, whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 419 and 120(B) of IPC.

As per the prosecution case, an agreement dated 20.06.2006, which was an agreement for sale of land measuring 3 bigha 19 katha by Dinesh Maheshwari (petitioner) and others. It has further been alleged that a consideration amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was agreed upon, but only 4,00,000/- was paid and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed, which has to be done within three months. On account of failure of the petitioner the sale deed could not be executed hence, a Complaint Case was filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that the cognizance in the present matter came to be taken by order dated 18.07.2014, after taking cognizance, that the Opposite Party No. 2 has also filed a title suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction at Madhepura, bearing title suit no. 423 of 2014 i.e., for specific performance of contract. It has further been submitted that as regards non execution of sale deed and the same is purely civil in nature. It has further been submitted referring to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 and Sudha Rakesh Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2026 INSC 1086 that proceedings against the petitioner is purely civil in nature. Moreover, it has been submitted referring to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 that the case of the petitioner falls under the various categories as mentioned in paragraph-102 of the said judgment. Moreover, it has been submitted referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble supreme court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. And Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate And Others, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 that the summoning order may not be passed as a matter of force and the learned Magistrate may primarily be satisfied as regards the prima facie case is made out, offence is purely civil in nature.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

Heard the parties and perused the records.

Considering the facts and circumstances, including the facts that the allegations are purely civil in nature and a title suit has been filed by the complainant for specific performance of contract before the competent court of civil jurisdiction and the said judgments discussed above.

Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 18.07.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 4132-C of 2013 is hereby quashed.

This application is allowed.