IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53275 of 2016

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-920 Year-2015 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Lakhisarai

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

1.Ramchandra Prasad Agrawal, Son of Late Nathoram Agarwal;

2.Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Son of Late Nanduram Agrawal;

Both are resident of Village and P.S.- Surajgarha, District- Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar.

2.Pramod Kumar Agrawal, Son of Late Kanhaiya Lal Agarwal, Resident of

Village and P.S.- Surajgarha, District- Lakhisarai.

... ... Opposite Party/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Mayank Bilochan, Adv.

For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Dronacharya, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Date : 03-09-2026

The petitioners have questioned the legality of the

order dated 13.07.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 920C of

2015 (G.R. No. 635/2015) by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Lakhisarai (in short the C.J.M., Lakhisarai), who,

finding, prima facie, case under Sections 406, 420 and 465 of

the Indian Penal Code (in short the I.P.C.), has directed issuance

of process against the petitioners for their appearance to face

trial.

2. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

2/23

complainant, namely, Pramod Kumar Agrawal, who is opposite

party No. 2 herein, filed a complaint case on 11.05.2015 in the

Court of learned C.J.M., Lakhisarai, alleging, inter alia, therein

that way-back in the year 1966, a partition-deed was prepared in

presence of his grand-parents and their four sons, which was

duly registered and in pursuance thereof, all the parties to the

partition suit took possession over their respective shares and

have been continuing in peaceful possession of the same.

3. It is alleged by the complainant/opposite party

No. 2 that the land situated at Khesra Nos. 435, 436 and Khata

No. 69 though divided equally between the four sons, but their

specific shares remain undemarcated. Taking the advantage of

the same, petitioner No. 1, namely, Ramchandra Prasad

Agrawal, who is the own uncle of the complainant/opposite

party No. 2, with the help of other accused persons,

manufactured a fake document dated 02.07.1986 and on the

basis of the aforesaid document of 1986, the accused persons,

namely, Ramchandra Prasad Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar

Agrawal (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein respectively)

fraudulently sold complainant’s shares of land to one Neelam

Roy, W/o Arun Kumar Roy and, thus, they have cheated him.

4. It is further alleged that on 12.08.2010, once

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

3/23

again, accused/Sanjay Kumar Agrawal further sold some part of

the land situated in Khesra No. 435 and Khata No. 69 to one

Rani Kumari and Rajesh Kumar through sale-deed dated

12.08.2010. All the aforesaid sales were effected on the basis of

false deed/document created on 02.07.1986 by the aforesaid

accused persons.

5. Thus, all the accused persons, as named in the

complaint petition, have conspired to sell the shares of the

complainant’s land on the basis of a deed created in the year

1986 and, thus, they, with fraudulent intention, cheated the

complainant/opposite party No. 2, knowing full-well that they

are selling the complainant’s shares without there having any

valid authority for the same.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a

complaint case, bearing No. 188C of 2015, was instituted and

the same was forwarded to Surajgarha Police Station under

Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in

short the Cr.P.C.) for registration of an F.I.R. and consequent

investigation. On receipt of the same, an F.I.R. was registered

vide Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 68 of 2015, dated 21.04.2015, for

the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 424 and 120(B)/34 of

the I.P.C.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

4/23

7. After thorough investigation into the matter, the

police submitted final form vide Final Report No. 59 of 2015,

dated 23.05.2015, holding the case to be of civil nature.

8. The complainant/opposite party No. 2 has

already filed a protest petition in the Court of learned C.J.M.,

Lakhisarai, whereafter the learned Trial Court, on receipt of the

final form, accepted the same vide order dated 11.12.2015 and

proceeded on the protest petition filed on behalf of the

complainant/opposite party No. 2, treating it to be a complaint

case and as such, a complaint case vide Complaint Case No.

920(C) of 2015 came to be instituted.

9. Thereafter, in the aforesaid complaint case, viz.,

Complaint Case No. 920(C) of 2015, the solemn affirmation of

the complainant/opposite party No. 2 was recorded on

15.02.2016 and the statements of the enquiry witnesses, namely,

Mukund Murari and Binay Bhushan Jha were also recorded on

18.02.2016 and 21.04.2016 respectively.

10. After having perused and considered the solemn

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

statements of the enquiry witnesses, the learned C.J.M.,

Lakhisarai vide order dated 13.07.2016, finding, prima facie,

case only against two accused persons, namely, Ramchandra

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

5/23

Prasad Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, under Sections

406, 420 and 465 of the I.P.C., issued process for their

appearance to face trial.

11. The aforesaid order dated 13.07.2016, passed

by the learned C.J.M., Lakhisarai, is under challenge in the

present petition.

12. Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, learned Advocate for the

petitioners, assisted by Mr. Ambika Bhagat, learned counsel,

submits that the petitioners and the complainant/opposite party

No. 2 are agnates and are descendants of common ancestors and

a partition between them has already taken place through a

registered-deed of partition way-back in the year 1966 and after

the aforesaid partition, all the agnates including the petitioners

and the complainant/opposite party No. 2 came into possession

of their respective shares and, accordingly, land was mutated in

their names and the Jamabandi was also created, whereupon

they started paying revenue to the Government.

13. It has also been submitted on behalf of the

petitioners that after the partition, the respective shares of land

was clearly demarcated and only thereafter, all the co-

sharers/co-parceners came into possession over their respective

shares of their demarcated land.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

6/23

14. Mr. Kumar, learned Advocate for the

petitioners, advances his arguments by submitting that, by way

of registered sale-deeds, the petitioners have sold their

respective shares in favour of the purchasers, who paid the

requisite consideration amount. He submits that the sale of one’s

share in land in favour of another person through a registered

sale-deed, upon receipt of due consideration, is purely a civil

transaction. The petitioners were duly competent and legally

entitled to execute the said sale-deeds in respect of their

respective shares, and, therefore, they cannot be prosecuted

merely on the basis of the statement of an agnate (Gotiya), who

has also been allotted his respective share pursuant to a

partition.

15. From the perusal of the complaint petition as

well as the solemn affirmation of the complainant/opposite party

No. 2, it is very much evident that the instant complaint case has

been filed merely alleging sale of undemarcated land, which the

complainant/opposite party No. 2 claims to be of his share, but

has been sold by the petitioners, who are none else than the

agnates of the complainant/opposite party No. 2., and the

petitioners have also got their respective shares out of the

partition-deed executed in the year 1986.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

7/23

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners also points

out that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature,

concerning their respective shares in a piece of undemarcated

land. This fact is also borne out from the investigation report

submitted by the police, wherein the dispute was found to be

purely civil in nature. After conducting a thorough investigation,

the police, finding the dispute between the parties to be civil in

nature and relating to their respective shares in the land,

submitted a final report, which was duly accepted by the learned

Trial Court vide order dated 11.12.2015.

17. It has also been contended on behalf of the

petitioners that none of the ingredients of Sections 406, 420 and

465 of the I.P.C. are attracted in the facts and circumstances of

the present case, in view of the allegations made in the

complaint petition, the solemn affirmation of the

complainant/opposite party No. 2 as well as the statements of

the enquiry witnesses recorded on oath.

18. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners

contends that the order taking cognizance is not only bad in law

and on facts, but also suffers from serious infirmity, reflecting

non-application of judicial mind on the part of the learned

C.J.M., Lakhisarai, who passed the order of cognizance in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

8/23

most mechanical manner. It is, therefore, contended that the

impugned order, being legally unsustainable, is fit to be set

aside.

19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

complainant/opposite party No. 2, Mr. Dronacharya, controverts

the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners by

submitting that from perusal of the complaint petition, the

solemn affirmation of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 as

well as the statements of the enquiry witnesses recorded on

oath, a prima facie case of cheating and fraud is undoubtedly

made out. He submits that, by the acts of the petitioners, the

complainant/opposite party No. 2 has not only been cheated but

has also been defrauded. It is further submitted that the share of

land belonging to the complainant/opposite party No. 2 has been

sold by the accused/petitioners without verifying the relevant

records to ascertain whether the said land belonged to them.

The land so sold by the accused/petitioners was, in fact, part of

the exclusive share of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and

as such, the sale of the said land by the petitioners, suppressing

the material facts from the purchasers/buyers, prima facie,

constitutes an act of cheating and forgery.

20. He further submits that the petitioners not only

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

9/23

created a false deed in the year 1986, but also, on the basis

thereof, executed sale-deeds in favour of various persons after

receiving substantial consideration amounts, to which they were

neither legally entitled nor competent to claim. He supports the

order taking cognizance passed by the learned C.J.M.,

Lakhisarai, contending that the said order reflects due

application of judicial mind and is based upon legally tenable

evidence, which has duly been considered by the learned Court

while issuing summons, upon having found, prima facie, that a

case is made out against the petitioners.

21. Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State, supports the contentions

advanced on behalf of the complainant/opposite party No. 2

and, while concluding his submissions, submits that the bona

fides of the claims and contentions advanced on behalf of the

petitioners as well as the complainant/opposite party No. 2 can

be tested and examined only in the course of trial. He further

submits that the petitioners may be relegated to the Civil Court

to establish their respective claims and contentions.

22. Heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties and perused the documents brought on record as well as

appended to the present application in the form of various

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

10/23

annexures.

23. From a perusal of the complaint petition as well

as the documents brought on record, the following facts come to

the fore, which shed important light on the true nature of the

allegations levelled by the complainant/opposite party No. 2

against the petitioners:-

(i) As per the complaint, the occurrence alleged

to have taken place on 12.08.2010, but the aforesaid

complaint case was filed on 06.04.2015;

(ii) The registered partition-deed was executed

on 05.01.1966, whereby shares of all the agnates

including the petitioners and the

complainant/opposite party No. 2 were carved out;

(iii) The complainant’s (opposite party No. 2)

claimed that the land situated at Khesra Nos. 435 and

436 in Khata No. 69 though divided equally in four

shares, i.e., between all the agnates including the

petitioners and the complainant/opposite party No. 2,

but the same was not demarcated, especially between

them, i.e., the share-holders;

(iv) Firstly on 24.01.2004 and secondly on

12.08.2010, the accused/petitioners sold land to other

persons through registered sale-deeds; and

(v) There are specific allegations, as narrated in

the complaint petition, that a fake document was

created on 02.07.1986 by the accused/petitioners and

on the strength of the same, they started selling land

to other persons through registered sale-deeds.

24. Thus, the entire complaint petition is replete

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

11/23

with almost identical nature of allegations with respect to selling

of land by the petitioners, which was not demarcated and only

on that premise, the instant criminal prosecution has been

initiated against the petitioners.

25. Perusal of the complaint petition reflects the

true nature of allegation.

26. The complainant/opposite party No. 2, being

the son of late Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal, who was none other than

the full brother of petitioner No. 1, namely, Ramchandra Prasad

Agrawal, has lodged the present case being aggrieved by the

sale of the pieces of undemarcated land, as claimed by him, by

the petitioners through registered sale-deeds. Initially, a

complaint case was filed, which was referred to the police for

investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., whereupon

Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 68 of 2015, dated 21.04.2015, was

registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 424

and 120(B)/34 of the I.P.C. The police, after conducting a

thorough investigation into the matter, did not find any evidence

with regard to any criminal act having been committed by the

petitioners and, accordingly, treating the dispute to be purely

civil in nature, submitted a final report. The said final report

was duly accepted by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, upon

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

12/23

filing of a protest petition by the complainant/opposite party No.

2, which was treated as a complaint petition, the instant criminal

prosecution came to be instituted against the petitioners.

27. The plain reading of the entire complaint

petition, the solemn affirmation of the complainant/opposite

party No. 2, and the statements of the enquiry witnesses

recorded on oath, indisputably reveal that the instant criminal

prosecution has been instituted arising out of a purely civil

dispute between the parties with respect to their respective

shares in an undemarcated piece of land, which was held by all

the co-sharers after partition. The solemn affirmation of the

complainant/opposite party No. 2 also substantiates the purely

civil nature of the dispute between the parties concerning their

respective shares in the said property. Save and except for

making bald allegations of fraud and cheating against the

petitioners, no documentary evidence of sterling quality has

been brought on record which could substantiate, buttress or

fortify the allegations levelled by the complainant/opposite

party No. 2 so as to make out the necessary ingredients of the

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 465 of the

I.P.C.

28. At this juncture, it would be germane to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

13/23

consider the scope, ambit, parameters and the ingredients of

Sections 406, 420 and 465 of the I.P.C. in order to examine as to

whether in the backdrop of the allegations as levelled in the

complaint petition, any offence, under the aforesaid sections of

the I.P.C., could be made made out against the petitioners for

sustaining the instant prosecution against them.

29. Section 405 of the I.P.C. defines the offence of

“criminal breach of trust”, which stipulates that:-

405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in

any manner entrusted with property, or with any

dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or

converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses

or disposes of that property in violation of any direction

of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be

discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied,

which he has made touching the discharge of such trust,

or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits

“criminal breach of trust”.

(Note:- Explanation 1 & 2 of Section 405 is not

relevant for the purpose of this case.)

30. The offence under Section 405 of the I.P.C. is

made punishable under Section 406 of the I.P.C., which reads as

follows:-

406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—

Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a

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

with both.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

14/23

31. Thus, for Section 406 of the I.P.C. to get

attracted, there must be a criminal breach of trust in terms of

Section 405 of the I.P.C. The essential ingredients for invoking

Section 405 of the I.P.C. are enumerated as hereunder:-

(a) the accused was entrusted with property, or

entrusted with dominion over property;

(b) the accused had dishonestly misappropriated or

converted to their own use that property, or dishonestly

used or disposed of that property or wilfully suffer any

other person to do so; and

(c) such misappropriation, conversion, use or

disposal should be in violation of any direction of law

prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be

discharged, or of any legal contract which the person

had made, touching the discharge of such trust.

In other words, for the invocation of the offence of

criminal breach of trust, it is expedient that the use of

disposal of the property is made by a persons entrusted

with or who has dominion over the property.

Furthermore, such an act must not only be done

dishonestly but also in violation of any direction of law

or any contract, express or implied, relating to carrying

out the trust.

32. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, the definition

of the term ‘Entrustment’ means to give (a person),

responsibility for something, usually after establishing a

confidential relationship.

33. In the context of Section 406 of the I.P.C.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

15/23

proceedings of any criminal prosecution may be quashed if the

complaint or F.I.R., even if taken at the face value, does not

disclose the essential ingredients of the offence. A clear absence

of allegations regarding entrustment or dishonest

misappropriation can be a ground for quashing.

34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi),

Department of Home and Anr., reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706,

emphasized the need to ascertain if the facts make out an

offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C.

35. Section 406 of the I.P.C. prescribes the

punishment for the offences of criminal breach of trust. This

provision plays a crucial role in upholding fiduciary relationship

and ensuring accountability for the misappropriation of property

entrusted to another. Criminal breach of trust, as defined under

Section 405 of the I.P.C., is a nuanced offence, requiring a

careful examination of the elements of entrustment, dishonest

misappropriation and the violation of legal or contractual duties.

36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Radheyshaym & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported

in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2311 and Rashmi Kumar (Smt) vs.

Mahesh Kumar Bhada, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 397, has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

16/23

culled out the aforesaid ingredients as discussed herein to

constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust and has laid

down as follows:-

“the word ‘Entrustment’ carries with its

implication that the person handing over any property or

on whose behalf that property is handed over to another,

continues to be its owner. Entrustment is not necessarily

a term of law. It may have different implications in

different contexts. In its most general significance, all its

imports is handing over the possession for some purpose

which may not imply the conferment of any propriety

right therein”.

(emphasis supplied)

37. In view of the legal conspectus of the

ingredients, scope and parameters governing an offence under

Section 406 of the I.P.C., as discussed hereinabove, the case at

hand is required to be examined to determine whether the

essential ingredients of an offence under Section 406 of the

I.P.C. are made out against the petitioners or not.

38. The bare perusal of the averments made in the

complaint petition as well as the statement of the

complainant/opposite party No. 2, recorded on oath,

unquestionably reveals that the dispute is essentially civil in

nature and relates to the sale of an undemarcated share in the

land. Nowhere in the entire complaint has it been alleged that

the petitioners were entrusted with any property or valuable

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

17/23

security, which they subsequently misappropriated. The

allegations are confined to fraud and cheating and that too with

reference to the sale of a piece of land by the petitioners through

a registered sale-deed.

39. Considering the nature of the allegations

levelled against the petitioners, it becomes manifestly apparent

that the dispute between the parties is nothing but one of rival

claims over a piece of land, which the complainant/opposite

party No. 2 claims to be undemarcated, whereas the petitioners

claim the same to be falling within their share. Such disputed

questions of fact, involving rival claims, interests and

possession over a particular piece of land, cannot, by any stretch

of imagination, be brought within the ambit of the offence

contemplated under Section 406 of the I.P.C.

40. Hence, in the case at hand, none of the essential

ingredients of Section 405 of the I.P.C., for which punishment is

provided under Section 406 of the I.P.C., are satisfied or

attracted against the petitioners so as to warrant their

prosecution for the said offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C.

41. The basic and essential ingredients of the

offence of ‘cheating’ as defined under Section 420 of the I.P.C.

are:-

1. The ingredients to constitute an offence of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

18/23

cheating are as follows:

1.1 There should be fraudulent or dishonest

inducement of a person by deceiving him;

1.1.a. The person so induced should be

intentionally induced to deliver any property to any

person or to consent that any person shall retain any

property, or

1.1.b. The person so induced should be

intentionally do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

1.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above, the act or

omission should be one which caused or is likely to

cause damage or harm to the person induced in body,

mind, reputation or property.

2. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an

essential ingredient of the offence.

A person who

dishonestly induces another person to deliver any

property is liable for the offence of cheating.

Thus,

3. The ingredients to constitute an offence under

Section 420 of the I.P.C. are as follows:-

3.1. A person must commit the offence of cheating

under Section 415; and

3.2. The person cheated must be dishonestly

induced to:

(a) deliver property to any person; or

(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or

anything signed or sealed and capable of being

converted into valuable security.

42. Thus, to constitute an offence under Section

420 of the I.P.C., there should not only be cheating, but as a

consequence of such cheating, the accused should have

dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver any property

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

19/23

or to make or alter or destroy wholly and in part a valuable

security.

43. In the aforesaid connection, the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court as laid down in cases of Prof. R. K.

Vijayasarathy and Anr. vs. Sudha Seetharam and Anr.,

reported in (2019) 16 SCC 739; A. M. Mohan vs. State

represented by SHO and Anr., reported in (2024) 12 SCC 181;

Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr.,

reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 and Sarabjit Kaur vs. The State

of Punjab and Anr., reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360 are of

significant importance, wherein the ingredients and parameters

within which the offence of cheating could be made out has

decisively been laid down.

44. Having considered the same, in the case at

hand, no offence of cheating could be said to be made out

against the petitioners, as there was no fraudulent or dishonest

inducement of any person so deceived by the accused persons

and the persons who claim to have been deceived, has been

induced to deliver any property to the accused persons.

45. Except for the bald allegations of forgery and

cheating levelled against the petitioners, the

complainant/opposite party No. 2 has not made out any specific

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

20/23

case against them to establish that the petitioners, with

fraudulent or dishonest intention, induced any person to deliver

any property. The principal allegation is that the petitioners sold

certain pieces of land which they claimed to be part of their

share, whereas the complainant/opposite party No. 2 claimed the

same to be of undemarcated share. The petitioners sold the said

pieces of land by way of registered-deeds of sale executed in

favour of the purchasers. However, the complainant/opposite

party No. 2 has neither taken any steps for cancellation of the

registered-deeds of sale executed by the petitioners nor

instituted any civil proceedings asserting his title, right or share

in respect of the said undemarcated piece of land.

46. Thus, in the absence of the basic ingredients

constituting the offence of cheating, the petitioners cannot be

allowed to be prosecuted for the said offence.

47. None of the ingredients of the offence of

cheating as defined under Sections 415 and 420 of the I.P.C. are

satisfied in this case against the petitioners and as such, no

offence could be held to be made out against them for the

aforesaid offence alleged to have been committed under Section

420 of the I.P.C.

48. Now coming to Section 465 of the I.P.C., which

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

21/23

provides “punishment for forgery” and the same has been

defined under Section 463 of the I.P.C. as follows:-

463. Forgery.—[Whoever makes any false

document or false electronic record or part of a

document or electronic record, with intent to cause

damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to

support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part

with property, or to enter into any express or implied

contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud

may be committed, commits forgery.

49. To prove an offence under this section, the

following basic and essential ingredients must be satisfied:-

(i) the accused must make, sign, seal or execute

a false document or false electronic record;

(ii) such act must be done with any one of the

following intentions, viz.:-

(a) to cause damage or injury to the public or to

any person;

(b) to support any claim or title;

(c) to cause any person to part with property; or

(d) to enter into any express or implied

contract, or with the intention of committing fraud or

enabling fraud to be committed.

50. In the case at hand, the complainant/opposite

party No. 2, except making allegations, has not brought on

record any unimpeachable piece of evidence, particularly any

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

22/23

documentary evidence, so as to substantiate the charge under

Section 463 of the I.P.C. It has been alleged that a false

partition-deed was created in the year 1986, on the basis of

which the petitioners subsequently executed two sale-deeds, one

in the year 2004 and the other in the year 2010, whereby they

sold portions of the undemarcated land in which the

complainant/opposite party No. 2 also claims to have a share

and in absence of any demarcation, the petitioners, by executing

the aforesaid sale-deeds, caused wrongful loss to the

complainant/opposite party No. 2. However, neither the

aforesaid partition-deed of the year 1986, which is alleged to be

forged and fabricated, has been challenged before any Court of

law by seeking a declaration to that effect, nor has either of the

registered sale-deeds executed by the petitioners, on the strength

of the said partition-deed, have been challenged before any

Court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration that the same

are forged and fabricated and, consequently, not legally

enforceable.

51. In the absence of any cogent, credible and

unimpeachable evidence, no prosecution under Section 463 of

the I.P.C., for which, punishment has been provided under

Section 465 of the I.P.C., could be initiated against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53275 of 2016 dt.03-09-2026

23/23

petitioners.

52. Thus, in the conspectus of the aforesaid factual

and legal analysis, the impugned order dated 13.07.2016,

whereby the learned C.J.M., Lakhisarai, in connection with

Complaint Case No. 920(C) of 2015 (G.R. No. 635 of 2015),

directed issuance of process against the petitioners for their

appearance to face trial, clearly reflects total non-application of

judicial mind.

53. Accordingly, the order dated 13.07.2016 passed

by the learned C.J.M., Lakhisarai in connection with Complaint

Case No. 920(C) of 2015 (G.R. No. 635 of 2015), being wholly

unsustainable in the eyes of law, is, hereby, quashed and set

aside. Consequently, all criminal proceedings emanating from

Complaint Case No. 920C of 2015 (G.R. No. 635/2015) qua the

petitioners are also, hereby, quashed and set aside.

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

stands disposed off accordingly.

55. The application stands allowed.

Praveen-II/-

(Rana Vikram Singh, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 29.07.2026

Uploading Date 03.09.2026

Transmission Date 03.09.2026