##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19714 of 2020

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2040 Year-2010 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE

District- Bhagalpur

======================================================

Manish Singh @ Manish Kumar Singh Son Of Bhola Nath Singh Proprietors

B.S. Engineers Lakshmi Chamber C-159/210, Narayan Industrial Area,

Phase-I, P.S.-Naryana, District-South West Delhi, New Delhi-110028.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Raj Kishore Singh Son Of Late Ram Udgar Singh Owner R.K. Engineering

Corporation, Resident Techno Point, Gali, P.S.-Tilka Manjhi, District-

Bhagalpur.

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate

Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate

Ms. Rakchika Shekhar, Advocate

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammed Arif

For the O.P. No. 2 : Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

8 29-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

APP for the State and the learned counsel for the OP No. 2.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the

order dated 15.09.2018 filed on behalf of the petitioner under

Section 245 of Cr.P.C. for discharge of accused in Complaint

Case No. 2040 of 2010 instituted for offence under sections 406,

420, 467, 468, 471 and 384 of the I.P.C. on the complaint of

Opposite Party No. 2 which was rejected by Learned J.M. 1st

Class, Bhagalpur.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19714 of 2020(8) dt.29-01-2026

2/6

complainant entered into an agreement with Bihar State Ward

Board, Patna and vide letter dated 19.04.2007 bearing Letter

No. 891, was directed to supply 175 H.P.C.F. Diesel Pump sets

for an amount of Rs. 37,68,760/-. The petitioner was allegedly

known to the complainant and, upon hearing the same, offered

to supply the commodities at a 15% profit. Subsequently, a letter

was issued to him. The petitioner reportedly supplied the

majority of the commodities but failed to supply items worth

Rs. 3,00,000/-, due to which the complainant had to meet the

demands. Later, the petitioner assured the complainant that he

would pay the profit money and the dues, but he did not do so.

The complainant then filed the instant case alleging non-

payment of Rs. 9,70,000/-.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a

perusal of the complaint shows that this is a civil dispute arising

out of the understanding between the petitioner and the

complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant has

acknowledged that the petitioner supplied the majority of the

commodities as agreed, which reflects the petitioner’s bona fide

intention. The counsel further submits that the complainant is

trying to give a criminal color to the matter in order to

exaggerate its seriousness, and is attempting to coerce the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19714 of 2020(8) dt.29-01-2026

3/6

petitioner into paying money through this criminal case.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that a review of the complaint and witness statements

will show that no offences under Sections 406, 417, and 419 of

the Indian Penal Code are made out. It is also clear that the

petitioner and the informant had a business relationship, during

which the informant supplied construction materials to the

petitioner for the government’s toilet construction scheme. The

petitioner submits that the entire case of the prosecution is based

on false, concocted, and fabricated claims.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that even if the allegations made by the informant are

taken at face value, the ingredients of the offence under Section

406 IPC are not met in this case. It is, therefore, submitted that

the criminal proceedings against the petitioner amount to an

abuse of the process of law, and as such, the proceedings and the

impugned order cannot be sustain