IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42866 of 2016

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3415 Year-2014 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE District-

Saran

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

1.Akshay Sinh Dalpat Sinh Chauhan @ Akshay Singh Dalpat Singh Chauhan,

Son of late Dalpat Sinh Pratap Sinh Chauhan @ Late Dalpat Singh Pratap

Singh Chauhan;

2.Pratima Akshay Sinh @ Pratima Akshay Singh Chauhan, Wife of Akshay

Sinh Dalpat Sinh Chauhan @ Akshay Singh Dalpat Singh Chauhan.;

Both are resident of Pratimjee, 124, Poonam Nagar Society, Near-Sharkar

Bhawan Marriag Hall, Bhator Road, P.S.-Surat District-Surat (Gujrat).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar.

2.Pramod Kumar Singh, Son of late Ram Naresh Singh, resident of Village-

Satasi, P.S.-Isuapur, District-Saran, at present residing at Prabhunath Nagar,

P.S.-Chapra Muffasil, District-Saran.

... ... Opposite Party/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar-1, Addl. Public Prosecutor

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Date : 12-08-2026

This application has been preferred under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

assailing the order dated 03.10.2015 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Saran at Chapra in connection

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

2/19

with Complaint Case No. 3415 of 2014, whereby finding

prima facie case under Sections 403 and 417 of the Indian

Penal Code (in short the IPC), processes have been issued

against the petitioners for their appearance to face trial.

2. In nutshell, the complainant/opposite party

No. 2, for the first time, come in contact with the accused

persons (the petitioners herein) at Surat, who were devotees

of Sant Param Jee Maharaj and thereafter, they started

meeting frequently. It is further alleged that after some time,

the accused persons asked the complainant/opposite party No.

2 to invest Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) in their

business, whereupon, on 20.04.2014 (Sunday), the accused

persons visited the complainant/opposite party No. 2 at

Chapra and on their persuasion, the father of the

complainant/opposite party No. 2 gave Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash

to them. The accused persons assured that money would be

returned within a period of six months. After a lapse of six

months, in-spite of repeated request of the

complainant/opposite party No. 2 to return the money so

taken, the accused persons did not return the same and started

threatening him of dire consequences, if he persist with his

demand of returning the money.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

3/19

3. Hence, the present complaint was filed on

19.11.2014 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Saran at Chapra, which was registered as Complaint Case No.

3415 of 2014.

4. In course of enquiry, solemn affirmation of

the complainant/opposite party No. 2 was recorded on

01.12.2014 and the statements of the enquiry witnesses,

namely, Rajiv Kumar Singh and Kundan Singh were recorded

on 05.01.2015 and 20.04.2015 respectively.

5. After having perused the solemn affirmation,

the statements of the enquiry witnesses and the materials

brought on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Saran at Chapra vide order dated 03.10.2015 finding prima

facie case under Sections 403 and 417 of the IPC, issued

processes against the accused persons, i.e., the petitioners

herein, for their appearance to face trial.

6. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Manoj Kumar-

1, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the averments made in the complaint are not only bundle

of lies but are far from the truth where the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

4/19

complainant/opposite party No. 2 has conceived a story in

which the petitioners have falsely been implicated. It has

been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they had

never ever visited Chapra before 08.08.2016, i.e., the date on

which they appeared before the learned Court at Chapra for

bail. It has further been submitted that both the petitioners

are husband and wife, who are disciples of Sant Param Jee

Maharaj since 1994 and the present complaint case is an

attempt to extort money.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the

petitioners highlights that petitioner No. 1 has been working

as a permanent employee on the post of Senior Science

Assistant in Man Made Textiles Research Association

(MANTRA), (a Government Organization under the Ministry

of Textile, Govt. of India) at Surat, since 01

st

of July, 1993

and as such, he does not need any money and that too from a

stranger, i.e., the complainant/opposite party No. 2, without

having any kind of business related issues with him.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the petitioners have never visited Chapra, especially on

the date as alleged in the complaint, i.e., 20.04.2014, which

is evident from Annexure-2 enclosed with this application,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

5/19

wherein a certificate has been issued by the Director of the

aforesaid Man Made Textiles Research Association on

04.08.2016, certifying that petitioner No. 1 was very much

present in the Office from 19.04.2014 to 21.04.2014. By

referring to this Annexure, the learned counsel for the

petitioners vehemently reinforces his argument, highlighting

the concoctions of the instant prosecution, terming it to be

malicious one instituted with ulterior motive.

10. Mr. Manoj Kumar-1, the learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the averments

made in the complaint has duly been supported by the

complaint/opposite party No. 2 in his solemn affirmation,

which also finds substantiation from the statements of the

enquiry witnesses recorded in course of enquiry. He also

submits that the learned Trial Court having considered the

entirety of evidence and having found prima facie case

against the accused persons, took cognizance of the offences

and issued processes against them. Thus, it has been argued

that there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance.

11. There is no appearance on behalf of the

complainant/opposite party No. 2 in-spite of having already

entered appearance through a lawyer.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

6/19

12. The order-sheets of the instant case reflect

the true conduct of the complainant and learned counsel

appearing on his behalf, as this Court vide order dated

22.02.2017, while issuing notice to the complainant/opposite

party No. 2, stayed the further proceedings in the present

complaint case, pending in the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate-Ist Class, Saran at Chapra, whereafter, on

14.08.2019, no one appears on behalf of the

complainant/opposite party No. 2 despite filing Vakalatnama

on his behalf. Seeing the conduct of the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party No. 2,

this Court, vide order dated 24.10.2019, was constrained to

issue a Court notice to him to appear on the next appointed

date for arguing the case on behalf of the

complainant/opposite party No. 2. Again, on 17.07.2026,

when the case was taken up for hearing, in-spite of repeated

calls, Mr. Dineshwar Pandey, learned Advocate representing

the complainant/opposite party No. 2, having already filed

Vakalatnama on his behalf, did not appear.

13. In aforesaid view of the matter, this Court

has been left with no option but to proceed to hear the matter

and after having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

7/19

learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, reserved the

judgment on 17.07.2026.

14. Heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties and perused the complaint petition, solemn affirmation

as also the statements of the enquiry witnesses besides the

documents brought on record.

15. From the perusal of the allegations made in

the complaint petition as well as the solemn affirmation of the

complainant/opposite party No. 2 and the statements of the

enquiry witnesses recorded on oath, it is manifestly evident

that save and except making bald allegations, no supporting

documents have been annexed therewith to substantiate and

support the allegations of demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the

payment made thereof. There is no chit of paper on the

record which could, indisputably, evince the transaction of

money between the petitioners and the complainant/opposite

party No. 2.

16. The averments made in the complaint

petition are very general and unspecific and it appears that a

story has been contrived just in order to implicate the

petitioners by making a demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in absence

of any proof of the said amount having been paid to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

8/19

accused persons, i.e., the petitioners herein.

17. Perusal of Annexure-2, as appended to the

present application, totally falsifies the allegations of the

complainant/opposite party No. 2. In paragraph 2 of the

complaint petition, it has been averred that on 20.04.2014,

i.e., Sunday, the accused persons visited the house of the

complainant/opposite party No. 2 at Chapra and received the

amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, which was paid by the father of the

complainant/opposite party No. 2, but it appears from

Annexure-2 (presence certificate), which is a letter/certificate

issued by the Director of Man Made Textiles Research

Association, Surat, Gujarat, an Institute linked to the Ministry

of Textiles, Govt. of India, that petitioner No. 1 is the

permanent employee, posted there as Senior Science

Assistant, has been in the office from 01.04.2014 to

15.11.2014. The aforesaid certificate, so issued by the

Director of the Institute, shows undeniable presence of

petitioner No. 1 at his work place during the period as alleged

by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 in his complaint

petition, which not only contradicts the allegations but also

falsifies the same.

18. Thus, it is very much evident that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

9/19

petitioners had never visited Saran at Chapra on the date as

alleged and if they, at all, visited, it becomes seriously

doubtful in view of the unimpeachable document annexed as

Annexure-2 and then, the question of payment of Rs.

2,00,000/- becomes equally questionable.

19. In the wake of aforesaid evidence on record,

the entire allegation of visiting Saran at Chapra by the

accused persons (the petitioners herein) for receiving the

amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- appears to be not only patently false

and frivolous but also exposes the true intent of the

complaint/opposite party No. 2 of falsely implicating the

petitioners with mal-intention and ulterior motive to extort

money from them.

20. The case in hand is the perfect illustration of

the malicious prosecution where without an iota of evidence,

merely on the basis of bald oral allegations, which remain

uncorroborated from any undeniable and unflinching

evidence, a criminal proceeding has been instituted against

the petitioners by setting the Court of criminal jurisdiction in

motion on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.

21. The manner in which the learned trial Court

has issued processes against the petitioners equally appears to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

10/19

be a reflection of pure mechanical order, wherein, in the

absence of any clinching evidence with respect to payment of

money and visitation by the accused persons to the place at

Chapra, the learned Trial Court, without examining the said

allegations in right perspective, mechanically passed the order

of cognizance and, thereby, setting the criminal proceedings

in motion against the petitioners, who, otherwise, appear to be

innocent and bona fide.

22. Even taking the allegations on its face value,

it is a question of recovery of money which has been given as

loan to the accused persons and for seeking re-payment of the

same, this criminal proceeding has been instituted with

ulterior motive. It is a settled proposition of law that if a

person has advanced loan to any person, then the only

way/option available to him/her is to have recourse to the

proper civil remedy by filing an appropriate suit/application

before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for recovery

of the loan amount, if one could prove in course of the

proceeding that money has been paid. Instead of having

recourse to the proper and appropriate proceedings for

recovery of the loan amount, the complainant/opposite party

No. 2 has adopted a much faster route by setting the criminal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

11/19

proceedings in motion to recover the amount of loan alleged

to have been given to the accused persons/petitioners without

there being any proof of giving the same as loan.

23. At this juncture, it would be apposite to

consider the basic ingredients of Section 403 and Section 417

of the IPC, under which, the learned Magistrate, in the case at

hand, has taken cognizance.

24. In order to examine whether the ingredients

of the aforesaid two sections of the IPC are satisfied in the

present case, so as to fasten the criminal liability on the

petitioners, it would be relevant to first quote Section 403 of

the IPC, which deals with “dishonest misappropriation of

property”:-

“403. Dishonest misappropriation of

property.-Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or

converts to his own use any movable property, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or

with both.”

[Note: Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 are

not being quoted here as the same are not relevant in

the facts of the case at hand].

25. Thus, the basic requirements for attracting

this section are:-

(i) the movable property in question

should belong to a person other than accused;

(ii) the accused should wrongly

appropriate or convert such property to his own

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

12/19

use; and

(iii) there should be dishonest intention

on the part of the accused.

And here, the basic requirement is that the

subject matter of dishonest misappropriation or conversion

should be someone elses movable property.

26. In the case at hand, none of the ingredients

of Section 403 of the IPC is satisfied as neither is there any

movable property belonging to another person than the

accused and the accused has wrongly appropriated or

converted his property to their own use with dishonest

intention. In the present case, the allegation relates to taking

of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash as a loan with a promise to return the

same within six months’ time, but there is no proof with

respect to such loan being given to the accused persons, i.e.,

the petitioners herein, neither is there any evidence that the

accused persons had visited Chapra at Saran from Surat in

Gujarat on that very day to induce the accused persons to

deliver such money.

27. The aforesaid ingredients as discussed

hereinabove of Section 403 of the IPC has been judicially

propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

13/19

reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736.

28. Thus, Section 403 of the IPC is not attracted

in the case at hand.

29. Section 417 of the IPC prescribes

“punishment for cheating”, which reads as hereunder:-

“417. Punishment for cheating.-

Whoever cheats shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with

both.”

Whereas, “cheating” itself has been defined

under Section 415 of the IPC, which reads as thus:-

“415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving

any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces

the person so deceived to deliver any property to

any person, or to consent that any person shall

retain any property, or intentionally induces the

person so deceived to do or omit to do anything

which he would not do or omit if he were not so

deceived, and which act or omission causes or is

likely to cause damage or harm to that person in

body, mind, reputation or property, is said to

“cheat”.”

30. From the bare perusal of the aforesaid

provisions of law, it is manifestly evident that cheating

simpliciter is punishable under Section 417 of the IPC. To

bring home an offence under Section 415 of the IPC

punishable under Section 417 of the IPC, there must be:-

(1) deception of any person;

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

14/19

(2) that person must have been

fraudulently or dishonestly induced - (i) to deliver

any property to any person, or (ii) to consent with

any person relating to any property; or (2)(a) that

person must have been induced intentionally to do

or omit to do anything which he would not do or

omit, if he were not so deceived, and which act or

omission causes or likely to cause damage or

harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or

property.

31. The basic difference between Section 417

and Section 420 of the IPC is that where in pursuance of the

deception, no property passes, the offence is one of cheating

punishable under Section 417 IPC, but where, in pursuance of

the deception, property is delivered, the offence is punishable

under Section 420 IPC. There cannot be any doubt with

respect to the position that when the ingredients to attract the

offence punishable under Section 417 IPC are not satisfied,

there cannot be any question of such allegations/accusations

attracting Section 420 IPC, for the simple reason that to bring

a case within the ambit of Section 420 IPC, not only cheating

is simpliciter but also by dishonest inducement of that person

sought to be deceived to deliver any property must have

delivered that property or made alteration or destruction of

any valuable security.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

15/19

32. The aforesaid ingredients as discussed

hereinabove of Section 417 of the IPC has also been

judicially propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

cases of Ram Jas Vs. State of U.P., reported in (1970) 2 SCC

740; Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.,

reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751; and Payal Sharma Vs. State

of Punjab & Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473.

33. The aforesaid ingredients of Section 417

IPC, as set-out hereinabove, are not satisfied by any stretch of

imagination in the case at hand. The allegations so levelled in

the present complaint case is devoid of any factual and

documentary support to substantiate and corroborate the

allegations so levelled with respect to giving loan to the

petitioners without having any kind of acknowledgment or

receipt thereof.

34. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual legal

aspects, order taking cognizance, under Sections 403 and 417

of the IPC, does not qualify the test of legal scrutiny.

35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in umpteen

number of times, very categorically and emphatically

deprecated the tendency to convert civil disputes into criminal

proceedings. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation (supra),

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

16/19

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that criminal law cannot

be used as a tool to settle scores in commercial, contractual or

in money matters and that such misuse, amounts to abuse of

the process of law.

36. In a very recent case of Shailesh Kumar

Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC

1462, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has very strongly

disapproved the practice of using criminal proceeding as a

substitute of civil remedy, observing that money recovery

cannot be enforced through criminal prosecution where the

dispute is itself civil in nature.

37. The factual conspectus of the case at hand,

unequivocally, exposes the true motive of filing such a

complaint case where merely levelling an allegation of giving

loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioners without having any

proof in support thereof, a criminal prosecution has been

launched and the same has been allowed by the learned Trial

Court to proceed ahead, without even properly appreciating

the true nature of content as averred in the complaint petition.

38. The present complaint case has been

initiated merely in order to extort money from the petitioners

while using the criminal proceedings, whereas the proper

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

17/19

remedy could have been available to the

complainant/opposite party No. 2 is to approach the

competent Court of civil jurisdiction by filing a proper suit

for recovery of the loan amount as claimed to have been

given to the petitioners.

39. The criminal prosecution must not be

permitted as an instrument of harassment or settling private

vendetta. Regular complaints with respect of property/money

disputes are purely of civil nature, which are filed solely to

harass the persons either to extort money or the put pressure

in civil litigation and all these constitute an abuse of the

process of law.

40. The aforesaid proposition of law has already

been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of

Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal &

Ors., reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 and Ganga Dhar Kalita

Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in (2015) 9 SCC 647.

41. This Court finds that the categories (1), (3),

(5) and (7) enlisted in the case of State of Haryana & Ors.

Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335,

are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case,

making it a fit case for quashing of the criminal proceedings

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

18/19

pending against the accused, which reads as hereunder:-

“(1) where the allegations made in the

First Information Report or the complaint, even

if they are taken at their face value and accepted

in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any

offence or make out a case against the accused;

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations

made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence

collected in support of the same do not disclose

the commission of any offence and make out a

case against the accused;

(5) Where the allegations made in the

FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that

there is sufficient ground for proceeding against

the accused; and

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is

manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where

the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge.”

42. In the aforesaid conspectus, the allegations

as levelled by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 are of

doubtful veracity tainted with malice, which show clear abuse

of the judicial proceedings only in order to settle personal

scores with the petitioners.

43. Accordingly, the order dated 03.10.2015

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Saran at

Chapra, in connection with Complaint Case No. 3415 of

2014, taking cognizance of the offences against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42866 of 2016 dt.12-08-2026

19/19

petitioners, is, hereby, quashed and set aside and all the

criminal proceedings emanated therefrom are also quashed

and set aside.

44. The application stands allowed.

45. The interlocutory application(s), if any, also

stands disposed off accordingly.

Praveen-II/-

(Rana Vikram Singh, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 17.07.2026

Uploading Date 13.08.2026

Transmission Date 13.08.2026