Patna High Court
Chitra Rani Chatterjee And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 4 August, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33138 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2017 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar
======================================================
1. Chitra Rani Chatterjee, Wife of Samir Kumar Chatterjee
2. Sumit Kumar Mukherjee, Son of Prafull Mukharji @ Mukharjee, both are
Resident of Mohalla- LalkothiChuramil, P.S. Katihar, Distt. Katihar.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Chanda Devi W/o Triveni Prasad Biswas Resident of Anathalaya Road
House of Rani Chaudhary, P.S. and District- Katihar.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State: Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-08-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned
counsel for opposite party No.2.
2. The petitioners have filed this application
seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 29.01.2018 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, in Katihar (N)
P.S. Case No. 264 of 2017, whereby cognizance has been taken
against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections
420, 406, 465, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
they have been summoned for appearance.
3. As per the allegation, the informant entered
into an agreement with the power of attorney holders, namely,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
2/16
Deepa Devi and Shravan @ Shravan Kumar Mishra, to purchase 8
decimals and 4 kari of land situated at Plot No. 132, Khata No.
163 in Katihar, while the petitioners are said to be the owners of
the land in question. As per the agreement, the same was entered
between the informant and co-accused Deepa Devi and Shravan @
Shravan Kumar Mishra, who is the husband of Deepa Devi, and a
total sale consideration was fixed at ₹22,80,000/- and, upon
execution of the agreement, an advance payment of Rs. Two lakhs
was paid by the informant on 20.01.2015. It has further been
alleged that over the time, the informant paid a total amount of
₹12,45,000/- through various cheques and cash to the accused
persons. It has further been alleged that the informant was called to
the Registry Office on 22.04.2016 for the execution of registered
sale deed, where both the petitioners were present along with other
co-accused persons and one Jai Nandan Paswan. It is thereafter
alleged that the informant paid an additional sum of ₹1,00,000/- to
one Vishwajeet Kumar, a Clerk working at the Registry Office. It
has further been alleged that despite the presence of the parties and
payment to the Munshi/Clerk, the registration was not completed
that day and the informant was asked to return home and told that
she would be called back on some other day for execution of the
registered sale-deed. It has further been alleged that after waiting
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
3/16
for over a month and as no call was made, when the informant
visited the house of Shravan @ Shravan Kumar Mishra, where the
petitioners and others were also present, she was informed that due
to some disturbance, execution could not be completed and they
avoided executing the sale deed. It has further been alleged that
thereafter a village panchayati was convened and in the said
panchayati, the accused side agreed that if informant cannot wait
any longer, they would return the money. Pursuant to the said
panchayati, co-accused Shravan @ Shravan Kumar Mishra handed
over a cheque of ₹50,000/- to the informant, however, upon
presentation, the cheque bounced due to insufficiency of funds.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the
present case as they happen to be the owners of the land, while the
attorney holders were co-accused Deepa Devi and Shravan @
Shravan Kumar Mishra. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
further submitted that investigation proceeded in a perfunctory
manner and charge-sheet too came to be submitted against the
petitioners and others and the learned Magistrate took cognizance
against the petitioners in a mechanical manner without applying
judicial mind. It has further been submitted that from a bare
perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that the petitioners have neither
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
4/16
executed any agreement for sale with the informant or have
received a single penny from the complainant. It has further been
submitted that even if the case was accepted to be true against the
petitioners, although denying the same, the best remedy available
to the informant was to file a suit for specific performance of
contract before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, but the
present case has been lodged under the criminal forum only to
blackmail and to put pressure. It has further been submitted that
the FIR was lodged after a delay of 11 days.
4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners has further
submitted that co-accused Shravan @ Shravan Kumar Mishra had
also filed a complaint case against the present informant, which
was sent to the police for institution of the FIR under the
provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted
that co-accused Shravan @ Shravan Kumar Mishra and Deepa
Devi were allowed anticipatory bail on the condition that they
would return the money, which goes to show that the money was
taken by co-accused Shravan @ Shravan Kumar Mishra and
Deepa Devi and the petitioners had no role to play.
4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in the case of Rikhab Birani and Another Versus State of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
5/16
Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 823,
that non-payment of money or disregard to and violation of
contractual terms does not constitute a criminal offence. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of
U.P., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171, and in the case of
Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751.
He has placed reliance on paragraph 18 of the judgment in the case
of Mohd. Ibrahim (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has, referring to section 420 of the IPC, observed that the offence
under the said Section requires the following ingredients to be
satisfied, which is reproduced hereinbelow: –
“18. Let us now examine whether
the ingredients of an offence of cheating are
made out. The essential ingredients of the
offence of “cheating” are as follows:
(i) deception of a person either by
making a false or misleading representation or
by dishonest concealment or by any other act
or omission;
(ii) fraudulent or dishonest
inducement of that person to either deliver any
property or to consent to the retention thereof
by any person or to intentionally induce that
person so deceived to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived; and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
6/16
(iii) such act or omission causing or
is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or property.”
4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also
submitted that in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State
of U.P., reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has highlighted the fine distinction between the offences of
criminal breach of trust and cheating observing that the two are
antithetical in nature and cannot coexist simultaneously. Police
Officers and courts must carefully apply their minds to determine
whether the allegations genuinely constitute the specific offence
alleged.
4.4. It has further been submitted, referring to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kunti v.
State of U.P., reported in (2023) 6 SCC 109, that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that a breach of contract does not
give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, unless fraudulent or
dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the
transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep a promise
will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. Thus, the
dishonest intention on the part of the party, who is alleged to have
committed the offence of cheating, should be established at the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
7/16
time of entering into the transaction with the complainant,
otherwise the offence of cheating is not established or made out.
4.5. It has further been submitted that the
petitioners never induced the informant in any manner, rather it
was co-accused Shravan @ Shravan Kumar Mishra and Deepa
Devi, who had entered into an agreement with the informant and
the petitioners were not present at the time of the said agreement.
It has further been submitted that the entire money was paid into
the account of co-accused Shravan @ Shravan Kumar Mishra and
Deepa Devi. It has further been submitted that the cheque was
allegedly issued by co-accused Shravan @ Shravan Kumar
Mishra, while the complainant has not lodged a complaint, rather a
FIR was lodged, which is not maintainable. Moreover, there is no
averment that any legal notice was sent and the requirement of
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was complied.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has
vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Learned counsel
for the opposite party No.2 has submitted that the petitioners have
actively defrauded the informant and there was meeting of minds
with co-accused Shravan @ Shravan Kumar Mishra and Deepa
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
8/16
Devi and the petitioners were well present at the Registry Office
and at other places.
5.1. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2
has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by a
coordinate Bench of this Court, dated 18.08.2025, in the case of
Manoj Nari Sainani @ Manoj Sainani and Others vs. The State
of Bihar and Others (Cr. Misc. No. 29313 of 2025) and has
submitted that even though the case was of the civil nature, but
since their intention was to cheat, therefore, criminal and civil
liability would lie against the petitioners.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
7. On a careful analysis of the facts of the case
what emerges out is that the petitioners never entered into an
agreement with the informant even though they are the land
owners, while the power of attorney was with co-accused Shravan
@ Shravan Kumar Mishra and Deepa Devi, who took the money.
The consideration amount was either paid to them in cash or in
their bank accounts.
8. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to
refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Usha Chakraborty v. State of W.B., reported in (2023) 15 SCC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
9/16
135, wherein dealing with similar issue, it has been observed in
paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, as under: –
8. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of
Uttarakhand [Paramjeet Batra v. State of
Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 : (2012) 4
SCC (Cri) 76], this Court held : (SCC p. 676,
para 12)
“12. While exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code the High Court has to be cautious.
This power is to be used sparingly and
only for the purpose of preventing abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise
to secure ends of justice. Whether a
complaint discloses a criminal offence
or not depends upon the nature of the
facts alleged therein. Whether essential
ingredients of criminal offence are
present or not has to be judged by the
High Court. A complaint disclosing civil
transactions may also have a criminal
texture. But the High Court must see
whether a dispute which is essentially of
a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal
offence. In such a situation, if a civil
remedy is available and is, in fact,
adopted as has happened in this case, the
High Court should not hesitate to quash
the criminal proceedings to prevent
abuse of process of the court.”
9. In Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State
of Kerala [Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of
Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293 : (2015) 3 SCC
(Cri) 498] , it was held that : (SCC pp. 297-98,
para 13)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
10/16
“13. It is true that a given set
of facts may make out a civil wrong as
also a criminal offence and only because
a civil remedy may be available to the
complainant that itself cannot be a
ground to quash a criminal proceeding.
The real test is whether the allegations in
the complaint disclose the criminal
offence of cheating or not. In the present
case there is nothing to show that at the
very inception there was any intention
on behalf of the accused persons to cheat
which is a condition precedent for an
offence under Section 420IPC. In our
view the complaint does not disclose
any criminal offence at all. The criminal
proceedings should not be encouraged
when it is found to be mala fide or
otherwise an abuse of the process of the
court. The superior courts while
exercising this power should also strive
to serve the ends of justice. In our
opinion in view of these facts allowing
the police investigation to continue
would amount to an abuse of the process
of the court and the High Court
committed an error in refusing to
exercise the power under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code to quash
the proceedings.”
10. In Kapil Aggarwal v. Sanjay
Sharma [Kapil Aggarwal v. Sanjay Sharma,
(2021) 5 SCC 524 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 634],
this Court held that Section 482 is designed to
achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal
proceedings are not permitted to generate into
weapons of harassment.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
11/16
11. In the decision in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992
SCC (Cri) 426], a two-Judge Bench of this
Court considered the statutory provisions as
also the earlier decisions and held as under :
(SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
“102. … (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.
(2) Where the allegations in
the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(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.
(4) Where the allegations in
the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an
order of a Magistrate as contemplated
under Section 155(2) of the Code.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
12/16
(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.
(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(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.”
12. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P)
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Neeharika
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,
(2021) 19 SCC 401], a three-Judge Bench of
this Court laid down the following principles
of law : (SCC pp. 444-45, para 13)
“13. From the aforesaid
decisions of this Court, right from the
decision of the Privy Council in
Khawaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v.
Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
13/16
OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203],
the following principles of law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory
right and duty under the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of
the Code to investigate into cognizable
offences;
13.2. Courts would not thwart
any investigation into the cognizable
offences;
13.3. However, in cases where
no cognizable offence or offence of any
kind is disclosed in the first information
report the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on;
13.4. The power of quashing
should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare
cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard
in its application for quashing under
Section 482CrPC is not to be confused
with the norm which has been
formulated in the context of the death
penalty, as explained previously by this
Court);
13.5. While examining an
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
13.6. Criminal proceedings
ought not to be scuttled at the initial
stage;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
14/16
13.7. Quashing of a
complaint/FIR should be an exception
and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are
barred from usurping the jurisdiction of
the police, since the two organs of the
State operate in two specific spheres of
activities. The inherent power of the
court is, however, recognized to secure
the ends of justice or prevent the above
of the process by Section 482CrPC.
13.9. The functions of the
judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
13.10. Save in exceptional
cases where non-interference would
result in miscarriage of justice, the Court
and the judicial process should not
interfere at the stage of investigation of
offences;
13.11. Extraordinary and
inherent powers of the Court do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
Court to act according to its whims or
caprice;
13.12. The first information
report is not an encyclopaedia which
must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported.
Therefore, when the investigation by the
police is in progress, the court should
not go into the merits of the allegations
in the FIR. Police must be permitted to
complete the investigation. It would be
premature to pronounce the conclusion
based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
15/16
investigated or that it amounts to abuse
of process of law. During or after
investigation, if the investigating officer
finds that there is no substance in the
application made by the complainant,
the investigating officer may file an
appropriate report/summary before the
learned Magistrate which may be
considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure;
13.13. The power under
Section 482CrPC is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the
court to be cautious. It casts an onerous
and more diligent duty on the court;
13.14. However, at the same
time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard
being had to the parameters of quashing
and the self-restraint imposed by law,
more particularly the parameters laid
down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P.
Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC
OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and
Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC
(Cri) 426], has the jurisdiction to quash
the FIR/complaint; and
13.15. When a prayer for
quashing the FIR is made by the alleged
accused, the court when it exercises the
power under Section 482CrPC, only has
to consider whether or not the
allegations in the FIR disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence and
is not required to consider on merits
whether the allegations make out a
cognizable offence or not and the court
has to permit the investigating
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33138 of 2018 dt.04-08-2026
16/16
agency/police to investigate the
allegations in the FIR.”
9. In view of the aforesaid factual background
and in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Usha Chakraborty (supra), this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated 29.01.2018, whereby the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, took cognizance in
Katihar (N) P.S. Case No. 264 of 2017, is unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the said order taking cognizance is hereby quashed
and set aside with respect to the petitioners only.
10. This application is accordingly allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Pawan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 04.08.2026. Transmission Date 04.08.2026.
