Case Background
The matter arose from Complaint Case No. 495(C) of 2010 filed in Patna. The complainant alleged that money was taken from him by certain persons for purchase of a flat.
The flat in question was identified as Flat No. B-34 in “Bimla Tower”, New Punaichak, Patna. According to the complaint, when the complainant went to the site, he found that this very flat had already been sold to another person, the present petitioner, who was residing there.
The complaint named the petitioner and four others as accused, and it mentioned alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. On 31.08.2010, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27410 of 2013 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He sought quashing of the order dated 31.08.2010 and the entire criminal proceeding as against him.
When the matter was heard on 25.01.2019, the petitioner was represented by counsel and the State was represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Although notice had been served on Opposite Party No. 2 (the complainant), nobody appeared on his behalf at the time of hearing.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, focused on whether the complaint and the materials on record disclosed any criminal act by the petitioner.
First, the Court noted the core allegation in the complaint. According to the complainant, he had paid money to some of the co-accused for purchase of a flat. However, when he visited the building, he discovered that the specific flat, B-34 in Bimla Tower, had already been sold to the petitioner, who was living in it.
It was not alleged that the petitioner himself had taken any money from the complainant, entered into any agreement with him, or made any promise about sale of the flat. The grievance was essentially against the other four co-accused, described as owners/developers of the building.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser of the flat. He relied on a registered sale deed executed by the owner of the land in favour of the petitioner on 26.12.2007. A copy of this registered sale deed was produced as Annexure-3.
On this basis, it was submitted that the petitioner had legally purchased the flat much earlier, through a proper registered document from the land owner. Therefore, the complainant’s grievance, even if true, lay only against those who received money from him and allegedly promised to sell him that flat, not against the petitioner who had purchased it lawfully and was living there with his family.
The petitioner’s counsel further submitted that the criminal case, so far as it related to the petitioner, was false and frivolous, and that there was no criminal complicity by him in any alleged cheating, breach of trust, or conspiracy.
This stand found support from the State itself. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted before the Court that, as far as the petitioner was concerned, no criminal act was made out against him from a reading of the entire complaint.
The Court then evaluated the facts and submissions. It observed that the petitioner, as a purchaser who had obtained a registered sale deed of the flat from the owner of the land, could not be said to have committed any illegality, particularly in relation to the grievance raised by the complainant against the other four co-accused.
The Court reasoned that the mere fact that the petitioner was occupying and living in the flat, which the complainant claimed had been promised to him by the other co-accused, could not make the petitioner a party to, or an accomplice in, whatever criminal act might have been committed by those co-accused.
In other words, the Court separated the complainant’s dispute with the developers/owners (who allegedly took money from him) from the position of the petitioner, who had purchased the flat directly from the land owner through a registered sale deed.
The Court also addressed the complainant’s possible remedy. It observed that, if the complainant desired to get the petitioner evicted after having his own right to the flat declared, he could do so only by approaching a competent civil court.
This statement is significant. It clarifies that where the real dispute is about ownership or entitlement to immovable property, and where one person claims that a property promised to him has been sold to another, the proper route is civil proceedings for declaration of right and recovery of possession, not criminal prosecution of a bona fide purchaser who has a registered sale deed.
Next, the Court located the case within the legal framework laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. In paragraph 102 of that decision, the Supreme Court gave illustrative categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, in order to prevent abuse of process of court or to secure the ends of justice.
The Patna High Court specifically held that the present case fell under categories 1 and 7 of Bhajan Lal. These categories, as quoted in the judgment, include situations where:
(1) Even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; and
(7) The criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or 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.
Applying these principles, the Court found that, considering the complaint as a whole, there was no material to show that the petitioner had committed any offence under Sections 506 or 120B IPC, or any other section mentioned in the complaint.
The Court also concluded that the prosecution against the petitioner was mala fide, untenable, and solely intended to harass him. This finding directly invokes Category 7 of the Bhajan Lal guidelines.
Having reached these conclusions, the Court held that a case for interference was clearly made out. It allowed the application under Section 482 CrPC.
As a result, the Patna High Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 495(C) of 2010, including the order dated 31.08.2010 taking cognizance under Sections 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, insofar as the proceeding related to the petitioner.
The Court also directed that the lower court records be returned to the court concerned forthwith.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for flat purchasers and ordinary citizens who may fear being dragged into criminal cases due to disputes between builders and other buyers.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that a bona fide purchaser holding a valid registered sale deed, and who has not taken money or made promises to the complainant, cannot be roped into criminal prosecution simply because someone else claims the same flat was promised to them.
It underlines that when the real dispute is about who has a better right to property, the correct remedy is to approach a civil court for declaration of title and eviction, not to launch criminal proceedings against a bona fide buyer.
The judgment also reinforces the protection provided by Section 482 CrPC and the Bhajan Lal guidelines. When criminal law is misused to harass a person without any real criminal allegation, the High Court can and will step in to quash such proceedings.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can a bona fide purchaser of a flat, holding a registered sale deed from the land owner, be prosecuted for criminal intimidation and conspiracy merely because a complainant claims that the same flat had been promised to him by developers who took his money?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that no criminal offence was made out against such a purchaser. Any dispute over entitlement to the flat must be settled in a civil court, and the criminal case against the petitioner was quashed as mala fide and intended only to harass him.
Issue: When can the High Court use its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in property-related disputes?
Answer: The Court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and held that quashing is proper where the complaint, even if accepted in full, does not disclose any offence against the accused, and where the proceedings appear mala fide and are instituted to harass the accused.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27410 of 2013; arising out of Complaint Case No. 495(C) of 2010
Case Title: Abhay Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Citation: 2019 (3) PLJR 248
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhola Prasad, Mr. Indrajeet Kumar, Advocates
For the State (Opposite Party): Mr. Nagendra Prasad, A.P.P.
Nature of the Case: Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of order taking cognizance and consequential criminal proceedings in a complaint case.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
