Patna High Court
Dr. Sheela Sharma And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 1 August, 2025
Author: Satyavrat Verma
Bench: Satyavrat Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6941 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2015 Thana- KOTWALI District- Patna
======================================================
1. Dr. Sheela Sharma Wife of Dr. Janakdeo Prasad Sinha
2. Dr. Rahul Janak Sinha @ Rahul Kumar
3. Dr. Shantanu Sinha @ Shantanu Kumar Both sons of Dr. Janakdeo Prasad
Sinha All residents of House No. 0/83, Doctors Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S.-
Kankarbagh in the town and District- of Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Amitabh Kumar, IRS (Customs and Indirect Taxes) Office Address Joint
Secretary At Deptt. of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Vanijya Bhawan 347, New Delhi 110011
3. Mala Pandey, NA R/o Kendriya Vihar, Flat No. 242, 4th Floor Suvidha
Apartments, Plot 10, Sector 56, Gurugram, Harayana
4. Meeta Mohini, NA R/o House No. 7, Kitab Bhawan Path, North Srikrishna
Puri, P.S.- Srikrishna Puri, Distt.- Patna
5. Durgesh Nandini NA R/o 4453 Brookes Walk, Tucker, GA 30084, USA
6. Anupam Shrihari NA R/o House No 248, Sector 31, Block A, Noida 201301
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate
Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K.Chaurasia, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-08-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P.
for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant.
2. The petitioner no. 3, in compliance of the order dated
25.07.2025
, is present in the Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that the instant quashing application has been filed for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6941 of 2016 dt.01-08-2025
2/5
quashing the order dated 10.11.2015 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 207 of 2015, GR
No. 2620 of 2015 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections
448, 380, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the
petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that
the informant of the case, during pendency of the quashing
application, died, as such, her legal heirs have been substituted. It is
next submitted that original informant, namely, Smt. Prabha Sharma
was own sister of Dr. Sheela Sharma who is petitioner no. 1 in the
instant quashing application and petitioners no. 2 and 3 are sons of
petitioner no. 1. It is also submitted that informant instituted the
aforesaid FIR with an allegation that Dr. Sheela Sharma along with
her two sons, namely, Dr. Rahul Janak Sinha @ Rahul Kumar and
Dr. Shantanu Sinha @ Shantanu Kumar and the builder, namely,
Sushil Kumar Pansari, Director Jeevanshree Infrastructure Private
Limited, have committed overt criminal acts for which they are liable
to be punished under Sections 379, 424, 427, 440, 452, 453, 454,
455, 456, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the background of
her active resistance to the attempts of the aforementioned persons to
grab her property and the deliberate inaction of the police hierarchy,
she apprehends serious threat to her life and that of her family.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6941 of 2016 dt.01-08-2025
3/5
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that the same does not even remotely suggest that informant
was own sister of the petitioner no. 1, rather an impression was
created that criminals are trying to grab the property of the informant.
It is next submitted that the police, after threadbare investigation,
came to a considered conclusion that petitioners are innocent and,
thus, submitted Final Form No. 250 of 2015 dated 16.08.2015
exonerating the petitioners of the allegation but then the learned trial
court differing with the police report took cognizance under the
aforementioned sections. Learned counsel also submits that it is
pertinent to submit here that a title suit being Title Suit No. 1957 of
2014 has been instituted which is pending adjudication before the
learned civil court in which plaintiff was the original informant who
now stands substituted in the title suit also and the defendants were
the petitioners herein apart from other sisters of the original
informant. It is submitted that the property, in dispute, in the
aforesaid title suit, was gifted to petitioner nos. 2 and 3 by their
maternal grandmother by a registered gift deed dated 27.07.1982. It
is further submitted that based on the gift deed, the lands were also
mutated in the name of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and they were in
possession of the property when the instant dispute arose. It is fairly
submitted that the dispute is purely civil to which a criminal colour
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6941 of 2016 dt.01-08-2025
4/5
has been given. It is next submitted that petitioners had entered into a
registered development agreement with a builder, namely, Sushil
Kumar Pansari and, as such, the builder also came to be implicated in
the instant case with general, omnibus and vague allegations. It is
also submitted that the police, after a threadbare investigation, came
to a considered conclusion that petitioners are innocent and no
criminal offence is made out in the nature of allegation as alleged in
the FIR, but then the learned trial court differing with the police
report without passing a reasoned order took cognizance in a
mechanical manner. It is further submitted that if the title suit is
decided in favour of the informant in that event the informant will get
her share but if the title suit is decided in favour of the petitioners
then the same would definitely cast an aspersion on the allegations as
alleged in the FIR. It is next submitted that in the nature of
allegations as alleged in the FIR, prima facie, none of the section of
which cognizance has been taken is made out.
6. Learned APP for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the quashing
application but then the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant is not in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that informant and
petitioner no. 1 were own sisters and the dispute in the instant case is
between the sisters on account of a gift deed executed by the mother
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6941 of 2016 dt.01-08-2025
5/5
of the petitioner no. 1 and the maternal grandmother of the
substituted informant in favour of the petitioners no. 2 and 3 i.e. sons
of petitioner no. 1 for which a title suit is pending adjudication.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court comes to a considered conclusion that the dispute involved in
the instant quashing application is completely civil in nature and in
the nature of allegation as alleged, prima facie, no criminal offence is
made out, as such, the order dated 10.11.2015 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 207 of
2015, GR No. 2620 of 2015, whereby cognizance has been taken
under Sections 448, 380, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against
the petitioners, is hereby set aside.
8. Accordingly, the instant quashing application is allowed.
9. The personal appearance of the petitioner no. 3 is
dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 01.08.2025 Transmission Date 01.08.2025