IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72304 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-814 Year-2019 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-

Rohtas ======================================================

Nand Kumar Singh Son Of Late Vishwanath Singh Resident Of Village - Khurnu, P.S.- Agarer, District- Rohtas, At Present Ward No. 34, Mohalla -

New Area Gayatri Mandir, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Binay Kumar Son Of Bishwanath Singh Resident Of Village - Nahauna, P.S.- Sasaram Muffasil, District- Rohtas, At Present Mohalla - Kailash Nagar, Sararam, Gali No. 1, P.S.- Sasaram Town, District- Rohtas ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay Mr. Rahul Rathour ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

4 27-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.9.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram in Complaint Case No.814 of 2019 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 406, 420, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and summons have been issued.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a complaint, bearing Complaint Case No. 814 of 2019, on 19.08.2019 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas, alleging that on 15.01.2015, the petitioner came to his residence and expressed his willingness to sell the land situated at Mauza Dilia, within Sasaram Municipality. The petitioner allegedly stated that he was in urgent need of money for the education of his son. Pursuant to a mutual settlement between the parties, the price of the land was agreed upon at Rs. 16,43,000/-. It is further alleged that the complainant paid Rs. 4 Lakhs to the petitioner on 20.01.2015 in the presence of witnesses. Subsequently, the complainant issued two cheques, each for Rs. 4 Lakhs, in favor of the petitioner. The complainant claims that one of the cheques was encashed by the petitioner, but the payment of the second cheque was stopped by the complainant when the petitioner failed to execute the sale deed as agreed. However, it is alleged that the complainant subsequently paid the entire amount of Rs. 16,43,000/- in full, in the presence of witnesses, but the petitioner has failed to execute the sale deed in favor of the complainant, despite the full payment being made. The complainant further alleges that when a request was made to the petitioner for the execution of the sale deed, the petitioner allegedly threatened the complainant with dire consequences if any legal action was taken or a case was filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of complaint, the statement of the complainant was recorded and two enquiry witnesses have been produced by him in support of his case. The learned Magistrate after enquiry took cognizance of the offence under section 406, 420 and 504 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner vide his impugned order dated 19.9.2019 and summons have been issued against the petitioner. He further submits that from perusal of the complaint and statement of the witnesses produced during the course of enquiry it appears that present dispute relates to execution of sale deed with respect to land in question on the basis of agreement between the parties for which the complainant has legal remedy to file a title suit before the competent civil court for specific performance of contract.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the fact that matter relates to civil dispute for execution of sale deed, no offence is made out under section 406, 420 and 504 of the I.P.C. therefore orde