Patna High Court
Deepak Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 18 June, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74489 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-380 Year-2022 Thana- RAXAUL District- East Champaran
======================================================
Deepak Singh Son of Saraju Prasad Singh R/O Vill.- Rajaapur, Khoravir,
P.O.- Ramnagar, P.S.- Jaunpur, Dist.- Jaunpur, U.P.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pawan Kumar Son of Late Bijli Singh Manager, Shiv Shakti Industries Pvt.
Ltd. Main Road, Near HDFC Bank, P.S.- Raxaul, Dist.- East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-06-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as also learned A.P.P. for
the State.
2. This application has been preferred under section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the 'Cr.P.C.')
for quashing the FIR being Raxaul P.S. Case No. 380 of
2022, registered for the offences under sections 420, 406 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (herein after referred to as the "N.I. Act").
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is
that the informant namely, Pawan Kumar (opposite party no.
2), who is the Manager of Shiv Shakti Industries Private
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74489 of 2024 dt.18-06-2025
2/8
Limited having its office at Main Road, Near HDFC Bank,
Raxaul, which deals with the supply of chicken feed, has
alleged that in course of business transaction, his company
had supplied chicken feeds to the petitioner, who runs his
business in the name and style of M/s Dev Enterprises. The
informant further alleged that an outstanding amount of Rs.
28,25,194/- was against the petitioner, since the year 2020-
21, and after several demands, petitioner issued a cheque of
the aforesaid amount, but when the informant deposited the
said cheque in his Bank, the same was dishonoured because
of insufficient funds. It is alleged that after this incident, the
informant had failed to establish any communication with the
petitioner despite of his best efforts.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written application,
Raxaul P.S. Case No. 380/2022 was instituted against the
petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
406 of the IPC and section 138 of the N.I. Act.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that lodging of FIR for dishonoring of
cheque is a non-approved concept under the law. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74489 of 2024 dt.18-06-2025
3/8
submitted that parties were doing their business together. It
is pointed out that as per FIR, the cheque was dishonored, as
issued by the petitioner on 11.02.2022, which was duly
informed to the informant namely, Pawan Kumar on
16.02.2022
by his bankers, but instead of giving any legal
notice to the petitioner, the informant straightway, after a gap
of six months, lodged the present FIR against the petitioner
for the offences punishable under section 420 & 406 of the
IPC and section 138 of the N.I. Act.
6. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the
petitioner that in terms of section 142(a) of the N.I. Act, no
FIR for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.
Act is maintainable as the same can be brought upon a
complaint made in writing, after due compliance of legal
provisions as available under section 138(c) and 142 of the
N.I. Act.
7. It is also submitted by learned counsel that
narration of FIR nowhere suggests prima-facie legal
ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust, as there
was no occasion for any entrustment, as parties were doing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74489 of 2024 dt.18-06-2025
4/8
business together.
8. Taking note of the allegation, as raised through
the present FIR, it is submitted by learned counsel that no
cognizable offence, as alleged, is made out against the
petitioner and, therefore, the present FIR is fit to be set
aside/quashed. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that
petitioner lodged a money suit bearing 03 of 2025 for
recovery of cheque amount, which is pending before the court
of learned Sub Judge – XII, Motihari, and, therefore, the
present FIR was lodged unoccasioned to create a pressure of
criminal litigation upon the petitioner.
9. While concluding argument, learned counsel relied
upon the legal report of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through G. Sagar Suri & Anr. V State of U.P.
reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636 and State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal and Others. reported in 1999 Supp (1) SCC
335.
10. While opposing the present petition, Mr. Kumar
Amit, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2
submitted that petitioner was under intention to cheat the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74489 of 2024 dt.18-06-2025
5/8
informant from very inception, but fairly conceded that
present FIR was lodged with a delay of six months and no
legal notice was issued by the informant for realization of
cheque amount. It is also conceded that money suit is pending
between the parties for recovery of cheque amount.
11. It would be apposite to reproduce paras 14 & 15
of G. Sagar Suri case (supra), which reads as under:
“14. We agree with the submission of the appellants
that the whole attempt of the complainant is evidently
to rope in all the members of the family particularly
those who are the parents of the Managing Director of
Ganga Automobiles Ltd. in the instant criminal case
without regard to their role or participation in the
alleged offences with the sole purpose of getting the
loan due to the Finance Company by browbeating and
tyrannising the appellants with criminal prosecution. A
criminal complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act is already pending against
the appellants and other accused. They would suffer
the consequences if offence under Section 138 is
proved against them. In any case there is no occasion
for the complainant to prosecute the appellants under
Sections 406/420 IPC and in his doing so it is clearly
an abuse of the process of law and prosecution
against the appellants for those offences is liable to be
quashed, which we do.
15. The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the
High Court dated 6-5-1999 is set aside and
prosecution of the appellants under Sections 406/420
IPC in Criminal Case No. 674 of 1997 (now Criminal
Case No. 6054 of 1998) and pending in the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad is quashed.”
12. It would also be apposite to reproduce paragraph
‘102’ of the Bhajan Lal case (supra), which reads as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74489 of 2024 dt.18-06-2025
6/8
under-
”102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive
list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74489 of 2024 dt.18-06-2025
7/8
(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.
(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 Act concerned,
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.”
13. In view of the aforesaid factual submission and
by taking note of the fact as lodging of FIR for the offence
punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act is completely
barred in view of the mandatory provision of section 142(a) of
the N.I. Act, coupled with the fact that narration of FIR
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74489 of 2024 dt.18-06-2025
8/8
nowhere suggests that any legal ingredients to make out a
prima facie case for the offences punishable under section
420 & 406 of the IPC in view of admitted business relation,
therefore, by taking guiding note of Bhajan Lal case
(supra) and also G. Sagar Suri case (supra), the present
FIR being Raxaul P.S. Case No. 380 of 2022 dated
04.08.2022, as lodged against the petitioner, is hereby set
aside/quashed along with any consequential proceedings, if
any.
14. Accordingly, this application stands allowed.
15. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court
concerned for immediate compliance.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 20.06.2025 Transmission Date 20.06.2025