The court ruled that mere breach of a civil contract does not amount to criminal offences under IPC unless fraudulent intent is shown from the onset.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA JUDGMENT AND ORDER C.A.V.

Date : 06-01-2026 The present quashing application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 31.08.2017, passed, in Complaint Case No. 721(C) of 2017, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XII, Patna, by which the learned District Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406 /420/467/468/ 471/387/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and one Nikhil Priyadarshi.

2. The prosecution case, as per the complaint petition filed by the complainant Shoaib Hasan Chand, against accused persons, namely, Krishna Bihari Prasad Sinha, Nikhil Priyadarshi, Manish Priyadarshi, relatives and family members of Krishna Bihari PrasadSinha, unknown anti-social friends of Nikhil and Manish Priyadarshi and Anjali Shrivastava, is that the complainant is the Managing Director of Aaha Planners and Developers Private Ltd. An unregistered development agreement was executed between the complainant and accused Nikhil Priyadarshi and Manish Priyadarshi, upon payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (one crore) on 13.10.2016, regarding 40 Kathas of land of the accused persons, situated at Saguna More, Patna. Again, they demanded Rs. 30,00,000/- from the complainant- Opposite Party No. 2, which was paid to the accused persons through his cousin. Again after payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- in the first week of November, the accused Krishna Bihari Prasad Sinha handed over the documents of the land, in question. It has been stated that the complainant spent Rs. 50,00,000/- lakhs for development work towards the cost of construction of boundary wall at the site. Afterwards, upon verification, the complainant found the documents of land, in question, to be forged, fabricated and fake.

3. It has been stated that a total amount of Rs.

2,30,00,000/- have been paid by the complainant to the accused persons. When the complainant demanded his money back, the friend of Nikhil Priyadarshi, namely, Gaurav, handed him a cheque of Rs. 450,000/- signed by one Prem Prakash, which was dishonored. Earlier also, a friend of Nikhil had given Rs. 1,00,000/- and further assured the complainant that he would get back his money once Nikhil arrives.

4. The complainant further alleged that on 13.03.2017, friend of Nikhil, along with anti-social elements, took the complainant to Durga Mandir, where he was surrounded by armed persons and threatened to kill him and his family members if he deposed in the rape case or demanded his money back and also threatened to lodge a false rape case against him. When the complainant demanded his money again, the accused filed false case of demand of extortion against the complainant.

5. The complainant, in his statement on solemn affirmation, states that Nikhil demanded Rs, 50,00,000/- on 25.01.2017, then he states that the demand of Rs. 50,00,000/- was made on 16 December, to which the complainant paid the amount after 2-4 days. The complainant got to know about the involvement of Nikhil, Manish and Krishna Bihari in the rape case of a minor girl through newspaper, dated 20.12.2016.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed mechanically without proper appreciation of the facts and settled principles of law. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would result in gross miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the Court as the dispute between the parties purely arises out of the development agreement, dated 13.10.2016. The consideration was clearly fixed as 50 percent of the total built-up area and the agreement neither contains any recital regarding payment of any cash amount no