Sudha Rani vs The State Of Bihar

Date : 20-08-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the order dated 09.11.2016, passed in G.R. No. 1643 of 2014 arising out of Beur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2014, whereby the petition of the petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.PC has been rejected by the learned A.C.J.M. XII, Patna.

As per the allegation, the informant, a lady, who entered into a written agreement with the accused for the purpose of setting up a mineral water plant on monthly rent of Rs 6,500/-and the accused started her business. It has further been alleged that the accused paid rent up to 31.12.2012, whereafter no rent had been paid till date and the accused had closed the rented premises and had also put a lock on the same. It has further been alleged that when the informant tried to contact the accused, the informant could not meet the accused, and, on 23.07.2013, whereafter the informant sent a legal notice to the accused through her Advocate on the permanent address of the accused, but the informant received no reply to the same. The informant filed an informatory petition vide No. 2731/2013 before the CJ.M., Patna, and the informant also sent a written application to the concerned police officials, i.e., the S.S.P., Patna, S.D.P.O Phulwarisharif and S.H.O. Beur Police Station, but no action had been taken against the accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that upon submission of charge sheet against the petitioner, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner preferred an application for discharge under the provision of Section 239 of Cr.PC, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order, although during the pendency of this application, charges have been framed and the same has also been challenged by IA No. 1164 of 2017.

It has further been submitted that bone of contention between the parties is with respect to non enforcement of the terms of agreement as well as non payment of rent and dues of electricity bill.

It has further been submitted that even accepting the allegations in totality, at best, a civil liability arises without any criminal intent.

Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. And Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors reported in 2024 (10) SCC 690 and has referred to paragraph 35 and 36 thereof. It has further been submitted that giving criminal color to a civil dispute arising from a property transaction amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. Moreover, referring to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) of SCC 335, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case squarely falls within Category Nos. 1 and 7 of the said judgment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present prosecution against the petitioner has been made out of malicious intent and personal vendetta.

Learned counsel has further relied upon 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, and has submitted that the summoning order is not a matter of course, the Magistrate must apply his mind to the complaint and the materials before him and must be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate should be prima facie satisfied that the accused may be guilty, a mechanical summoning without application of mind can be quashed.

It has further been submitted that the allegation in the complaint, which was subsequently sent to the police station for registration of FIR under the provision of 156(3) of Cr.PC, taken at the face value, does not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner.

It has further been submitted that if the complainant/informant is aggrieved by any violation of the terms of agreement the complainant has remedy before a civil court of competent jurisdiction and regarding the issue of rent, the same would have been raised before the Rent Controller. It has lastly been submitted that continuation of proceeding against the petitioner is an abuse of process of the court and the same is liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and the order taking cognizance does not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, does not warrant interference by this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the grievance of the petitioner is purely civil in nature and in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue, this Court is of the view that the present prosecution against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of court. Accordingly, the impugned order refusing to discharge dated 09.11.2016 passed by A.C.J.M. XII, Patna in G.R. No. 1643 of 2014 arising out of Beur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2014 and the subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed.

This application is allowed.