Patna High Court
Surendra Sah vs The State Of Bihar on 23 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59355 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-421 Year-2019 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. SURENDRA SAH S/O Late Muneshwer Sah R/O Village- Bhujauna, P.S.-
Dariyapur, District- Chapra
2. Pawan Kumar Son of Surendra Sah R/O Village- Bhujauna, P.S.- Dariyapur,
District- Chapra
3. Vidyawati Devi Wife of Surendra Sah R/O Village- Bhujauna, P.S.-
Dariyapur, District- Chapra
4. Ranjeet Kumar Suman Son of Rajeshwer Sah Resident of- Bada Kapur, P.S.-
Kurhni, District- Muzaffarpur
5. Soni Devi @ Soni Kumari Wife of Ranjeet Kumar Suman Resident of- Bada
Kapur, P.S.- Kurhni, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. Sneha Sri Krishna Kumar Sah d/o Krishna Kumar Sah, r/o village-
bishundatpur, P.S-Kanti, District- Muzzafarpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Saroj Kumar Chowdhary, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the
petitioners, has been taken on record.
3. The present application has been filed for
quashing of the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by learned
S.D.J.M., (West), Muzaffarpur in General Register Case No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59355 of 2022 dt.23-07-2026
2/9
1905 of 2019 arising out of Kanti P.S. Case No. 421 of 2019
whereby cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections
420, 406, 120B, 500/34 of IPC and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act.
4. The facts of the case, as disclosed in the First
Information Report, are that the ring ceremony of the informant,
Sneha and Pawan Kumar (petitioner no. 2) was held on
09.03.2019
and their marriage was fixed for 25.05.2019. The
family members of the informant spent Rs. 3,00,000/- on the
ring ceremony. It is further alleged that the petitioners started
demanding Rs 10 lakh and one car as dowry. It is further alleged
that, after all arrangements were done, Pawan Kumar (petitioner
no. 2) and his family (petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5) did not turn
up for the marriage.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the present case has been filed with totally false
and baseless allegations as the petitioners never had any
intention not to perform the marriage with the opposite party no.
2 and admittedly a ring ceremony was performed between them.
The petitioner, at the outset, had also shown his inclination to
return an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- which the informant alleges
to have spent in the ring ceremony, however, the opposite party
no. 2 has refused to accept the same. As a matter of fact, some
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59355 of 2022 dt.23-07-2026
3/9
differences arose between the bride and bridegroom on account
of which the marriage could not materialize and since the
marriage could not happen, the present case has been filed by
the informant/opposite party no. 2 imputing false allegation of
demand of dowry and payment of dowry to the petitioners, who
happen to be the bridegroom, Pawan Kumar (petitioner no. 2),
his father, Surendra Sah (petitioner no. 1), his mother, Vidyawati
Devi (petitioner no. 3), his brother-in-law, Ranjeet Kumar
Suman (petitioner no. 4), and his sister, Soni Devi (petitioner
no. 5). It would, thus, appear that the entire family of petitioner
no. 2 i.e. Pawan Kumar, has been roped in as accused in the
present case.
6. Learned counsel has further submitted that no
offence of cheating is made out in the facts of the case as it
could not be said that there was any fraudulent act indulged into
by the petitioners or any intentional inducement was given, nor
there was any dishonest intention at the end of the petitioners,
much less, the same being at the inception, in order to constitute
a case under Section 420 of the IPC. It has also been submitted
that no case of criminal breach of trust or other sections
levelled, is also made out against the petitioners and there was
no demand of dowry, as such, invoking the provisions of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59355 of 2022 dt.23-07-2026
4/9
Dowry Prohibition Act based on such false and imaginary
allegations, is bad in law as on facts. It is also contended that in
case the informant alleges the payment of any dowry, the
informant would also become liable for prosecution under
provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act as both giving and
taking of dowry is an offence under the said Act.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a
supplementary affidavit bringing on record the subsequent
development that both the petitioner no. 2, Pawan Kumar and
the informant, Sneha have solemnized marriage with their
respective spouses in the year 2021 itself and at present, are
leading peaceful conjugal lives with their respective spouses and
children. It has, thus, been submitted that even considering such
situation, the continuance of the present proceeding would
serve no useful purpose and the proceedings, thus, are fit to be
quashed.
8. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties
and upon perusing the entire materials on record, it is apparent
that in the facts of the case, it cannot be stated that the
petitioners had any intention whatsoever, to deceive or cheat the
informant, much less, right from the beginning, which is a
requirement of law in order to constitute an offence under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59355 of 2022 dt.23-07-2026
5/9
Section 420 of the IPC, as held by several judicial
pronouncements. It is well established that deception is a
necessary ingredient for the offence of cheating and in the
absence of any inducement having been caused or any deception
being exercised, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC would
not be made out. At best, it could be a case of failure to keep up
promise at a later stage on account of several reasons, as such,
this cannot form the sole basis to presume that a dishonest
intention existed from the very beginning. Reliance is placed
upon the case of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. vs. State by
Adugodi Police Station & Anr. reported in (2024) 11 SCC 733.
Para 22 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:-
“22. It is thus paramount that in order to attract the
provisions of Section 420IPC, the prosecution has to not
only prove that the accused has cheated someone but
also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the
person who is cheated to deliver property. There are,
thus, three components of this offence i.e. (i) the
deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly
inducing that person to deliver any property to any
person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the
accused at the time of making the inducement. There is
no gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent
and dishonest intention must exist from the inception
when the promise or representation was made.”
9. The aforesaid proposition of law has been
recently reitrated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.
Ganesan vs. State Rep. By the Sub-Inspector of Police &
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59355 of 2022 dt.23-07-2026
6/9
Anr. reported in 2026 INSC 265. Paragraph Nos. 13 to 15 is
being reproduced as hereunder:
“13. In order to constitute an offence of cheating the
intention to deceive should be in existence when the
inducement was made. It is necessary to show that a
person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time
of making the promise. Mere failure to keep the promise
subsequently cannot be the sole basis to presume that
dishonest intention existed from the very beginning.
14. In Vesa Holdings Private Limited and Another v.
State of Kerala and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 293,
this court held that every breach of contract would not
give rise to an offence of cheating. Only in those cases
breach of contract would amount to cheating where there
was any deception played at the very inception. If the
intention to cheat has developed later, the same cannot
amount to cheating. In other words, for the purpose of
constituting an offence of cheating, the complaint is
required to show that the accused had fraudulent or
dishonest intention at the time of making promise or
representation. Even in a case where allegations are
made about failure on part of the accused to keep his
promise, in absence of a dishonest intention at the time of
making the initial promise, no offence under Section 420
of IPC is made out.
15. Whether non-fulfilment of promise/ commitment by
the accused is a reflection of his or her dishonest
intention at the time of making the promise is ordinarily
a matter of trial. However, in our view, where the
transaction between the parties is such that fulfilment of
the promise is not entirely in the control of the promisor,
or there is an inherent risk in fulfilment of the promise,
the High Court may, in exercise of its inherent powers
under the Code, or under Article 226 of the Constitution,
as the case may be, upon consideration of the attending
circumstances, take a decision whether the dishonest
intention existed or not at the time of making the
promise. And, if it comes to the conclusion that the
alleged conduct of the parties does not reflect a dishonest
intention of the accused from the very beginning, it may
quash the criminal complaint/ proceedings and relegate
the aggrieved party to civil remedies.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. So far as the offence under Section 406 of the
IPC is concerned, the same would also not be applicable as there
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59355 of 2022 dt.23-07-2026
7/9
was no entrustment. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of
Arshad Neyaz Khan vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058, in paragraph no. 20 has held as
under:-
“20………It is trite law that every act of breach of trust
may not result in a penal offence unless there is evidence
of a manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation of
property entrusted to him. In the case of criminal breach
of trust, if a person comes into possession of the property
and receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts
it to its own use against the terms of contract, then the
question whether such retention is with dishonest
intention or not and whether such retention involves
criminal breach of trust or only a civil liability would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In
the present case, the complainant/respondent No. 2 has
failed to establish the ingredients essential to constitute
an offence under Section 406 IPC. The complainant/
respondent No. 2 has failed to place any material on
record to show us as to how he had entrusted property to
the appellant. Furthermore, the complaint also omits to
aver as to how the property, so entrusted to the
appellant, was dishonestly misappropriated or converted
for his own use, thereby committing a breach of trust.”
11. In the present factual scenario, reference has
been made to an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs being spent as expenses
incurred by O.P. No. 2 for ring ceremony, which the petitioner
has offered to pay showing his bonafide, although, it is also a
fact that for any such purpose, money would be spent by the
bridegroom’s family also in some manner.
12. Be that as it may, the basic ingredients of the
offences alleged, do not appear to be made out and the Court
cannot shut its eyes to the attending circumstances relating to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59355 of 2022 dt.23-07-2026
8/9
subsequent developments, for invoking powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.,
in order to secure the ends of justice.
13. Taking into consideration the factual context
and the legal position as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in this regard, this Court finds that the offences under the
alleged provisions are not made out against the petitioners and
also in the changed situation, where the parties have resettled in
their lives, there would be no fruitful or legitimate purpose to
allow the present proceedings to continue. In this context, this
Court would gainfully refer to the case of Mala Kar and Anr.
vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
1049; wherein parties remarried and were living their
independent lives after divorce. The Hon’ble Apex Court
considering this fact, quashed the criminal proceedings, as
continuance of the same would have only amounted to abuse of
process of law.
14. As such, this Court, finding the present
proceedings to be an abuse of the process of the Court, would
proceed to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of the
order dated 08.03.2022 passed by learned S.D.J.M., (West),
Muzaffarpur in General Register Case No. 1905 of 2019 arising
out of Kanti P.S. Case No. 421 of 2019.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59355 of 2022 dt.23-07-2026
9/9
15. Accordingly, the present application stands
allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
priyanka/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 27.07.2026 Transmission Date 27.07.2026
