Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 276
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
Subhash Prasad Yadav, Son Of Late Shiv Prasad Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar, Through The Home Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 64 of 2024
Decided On : 15-03-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Madhumay Madhup, Mr. Nishikant, Mr. Anand Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Aditya Raj.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shiv Kumar, AC to G.A. -3
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that FIRs based on civil disputes should not be pursued in criminal courts, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked to quash such FIRs when they do not disclose any offense.
Headnote:
EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION - QUASHING OF FIR - ARTICLE 226, IPC SECTIONS 447, 448, 341, 342, 323, 384, 386, 406, 420, 506, 120B - The court discussed the application of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which allows for the quashing of FIRs if they are found to be maliciously instituted or do not disclose any offense. The court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of FIRs, especially when allegations appear to be frivolous or vexatious. The interpretation of the relevant IPC sections highlighted the civil nature of the dispute, indicating that the matter should be resolved in civil court rather than through criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought to quash an FIR registered against him under various sections of the IPC, alleging that the FIR was based on false accusations related to a land sale transaction. The Informant claimed that the Petitioner threatened him and extorted money regarding the sale of land, while the Petitioner contended that the allegations were fabricated and that the transaction was legitimate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR was based on a civil dispute regarding the sale of land and that the allegations did not disclose any criminal offense. The court noted the inordinate delay in filing the FIR and the lack of evidence supporting the claims made by the Informant.
Issues: Whether the FIR registered against the Petitioner disclosed any offense under the IPC and whether it was appropriate to quash the FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for quashing an FIR, it must be shown that the FIR is maliciously instituted or does not disclose any offense. The court emphasized that the dispute was civil in nature and should be resolved in a civil court, not through criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the criminal proceeding, Bihta P.S. Case No. 425 of 2023, was quashed.
JUDGMENT :
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) :
1. The Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs :
(i) For issuance of appropriate Writ/Writs, direction/directions or orders/order, quashing the Bihta P. S. Case No. 425 of 2023, dated 04.05.2023, registered under Sections 447, 448, 341, 342, 323, 384, 386, 406, 420, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of written application given by one person, namely, Bhim Verma, against the above-named Petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of appropriate Writ/Writs, direction/directions or orders/order, directing the Respondents that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the Respondents may be restrained from taking any coercive step in pursuance of the proceeding in Bihta P. S. Case No. 425 of 2023, dated 04.05.2023.
(iii) For any other relief/reliefs, which the Hon'ble Court may grant in general interest, that may be deemed appropriate and necessary in this case.
2. It is submitted by the Petitioner that the Bihta P. S. Case No. 425 of 2023, dated 4th of May 2023 under Sections 447, 448, 341, 342, 323, 384, 386, 406, 420, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by one Bhim Verma, Respondent No. 6 herein, on the allegation that the father of the Informant entered into an agreement for a tenure of three months with one person, namely, Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya for sale of a piece of land. However, the said Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya did not pay the entire amount and the period of agreement had expired. Thereafter, the mother of the Informant, namely, Meena Devi executed a deed of conveyance in respect of plots of land, bearing Plot No. 2296, corresponding to Khata No. 26 and Plot No. 2299, corresponding to Khata No. 28, measuring about 7 khatas in favour of the wife of the present Petitioner at a consideration price of Rs. 96 Lakhs. Prior to the sale, the Petitioner was duly informed about the agreement with the said Arun Kumar executed by Ramanand Rai but he had chosen to purchase the said land. On 27th February, 2023, the Petitioner called both the Informant and Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya at his residence. The Informant, accordingly, reached the house of the Petitioner. Then the Petitioner allegedly told the Informant to return entire money and he wished not to transfer his land, sold to his wife to which Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya also agreed. It is also alleged that the Petitioner threatened and intimidated the Informant, taking the mother and brother of the Informant hostage and sent the Informant to bring Rs. 60. 50 Lakhs from village Arap. The said money was duly handed over to him. The Informant was further threatened of being killed by the Petitioner. Upon being asked for receipt of payment Rs. 60. 50 Lakhs, the Petitioner also threatened the Informant saying the Informant that if he reveals anything to third person, he will face dire consequences. The incident took place in presence of some witnesses. It is also alleged that the Informant told Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya that he should take back the consideration amount of the agreement, upon which Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya told the Informant to hand over the entire money to Subhash Prasad Yadav. The FIR further discloses that Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya brought another Arun Kumar, Son of Satyadev Singh of Sikandarpur within Police Station Bihta and claimed to have been sent by Subhash Prasad Yadav, who also asked the Informant to transfer Rs. 30 Lakhs into the account of Arun Kumar. The informant was persuaded by Arun Kumar of Sikandarpur to sign a document acknowledging receipt of Rs. 1 crore, and then only Arun Kumar of Sikandarpur would get Rs. 60. 50 Lakhs deposited in the account of Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya. The informant due to fear put his signature on a stamp paper. Thereafter, Arun Kumar @ Munshi @ Mukhiya forcibly entered into the infor
