Case Background
This case came before the Patna High Court in a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners challenged an order of cognizance dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in Saur Bazar P.S. Case No. 60 of 2015.
The criminal case started from an FIR lodged on 12.03.2015 at Saur Bazar Police Station, District Saharsa. The informant, opposite party no. 2, alleged that she had negotiated with petitioner no. 1 for purchase of one katha of land. According to her, she paid Rs. 80,000 to petitioner no. 3 and an agreement for sale (jarbaiynama) was prepared. It was agreed that after payment of the remaining Rs. 10,000, petitioner no. 1 would execute the sale deed in her favour.
The informant claimed that despite repeated requests and even a pleader’s notice, the petitioners refused to execute the sale deed. She also alleged that the khata of the land in question was later opened in the name of the Government of Bihar. A Panchayat was said to have been convened over the dispute, but the petitioners allegedly did not follow the Panchayat decision.
The informant further alleged that on 22.09.2014 she went to the house of petitioner no. 1 along with her husband and son to request execution of the sale deed. At that time, according to her, all the accused persons abused and assaulted them. She alleged that petitioner no. 2 pointed a “three Not” upon her and petitioner no. 4 threw her on the ground and snatched a silver locket from her neck.
On these allegations, Saur Bazar P.S. Case No. 60 of 2015 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 354, 379, 406, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet only under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. On that basis, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, took cognizance under Sections 406 and 420 IPC by order dated 18.12.2015.
The petitioners then approached the Patna High Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 42486 of 2016 seeking quashing of the order of cognizance. The application was heard on 04.09.2025 and interim protection was granted to the petitioners. The matter was finally decided by oral judgment dated 03.11.2025.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioners’ main argument was that the case was essentially a civil dispute arising out of a transaction relating to land and alleged agreement for sale. They contended that the informant had committed fraud in connivance with her son. According to the petitioners, petitioner no. 1 had only taken a loan from the informant, for which the informant had taken her fingerprint on a plain paper, and that paper was later used to prepare a forged jarbaiynama (agreement for sale).
They submitted that they were the real victims and that no criminal offence was made out against them. The petitioners argued that the informant had filed the criminal case only to settle a pending civil dispute, amounting to abuse of the process of law. They further argued that the learned Magistrate had mechanically taken cognizance under Sections 406 and 420 IPC on the basis of the chargesheet, without properly applying his judicial mind, even though the dispute was clearly of a civil nature.
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 argued that the allegations in the FIR were specific and fulfilled the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC. He submitted that the petitioners had taken money on the pretext of selling land, failed to execute the sale deed, and thus had committed criminal breach of trust and cheating. Therefore, in his view, the quashing application deserved dismissal.
After hearing both sides and the learned APP for the State, the Court examined the nature of the offences alleged and the law laid down by the Supreme Court on use of criminal law in disputes of civil nature.
The Court first analysed the basic difference between the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. It observed that to constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406, deception must arise after the entrustment of property or after the accused has acquired dominion over the property, followed by dishonest misappropriation, conversion, or disposal of that property in violation of the terms of entrustment.
In contrast, for cheating under Section 420, deception is required from the very beginning of the transaction. The dishonest intention must exist at the inception, forming the basis of the inducement by which property is delivered or some act is caused to be done. In other words, for cheating, the accused must have intended from the start to deceive the victim.
The Court held, as a settled legal principle, that if facts disclose commission of an offence under Section 406 IPC in relation to a particular transaction, the accused cannot at the same time and on the same set of allegations be held liable for the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, and vice versa. Both offences rest on fundamentally different legal foundations and cannot co-exist simultaneously on identical facts.
The Court then referred to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2058. In that case, the Supreme Court had carefully analysed Sections 406 and 420 IPC and concluded that these offences cannot co-exist on the same set of facts, because they are antithetical to each other.
The Patna High Court reproduced portions of the Supreme Court’s reasoning, including the observation that every breach of trust is not necessarily a criminal offence. For criminal breach of trust, there must be evidence of fraudulent misappropriation of property entrusted to the accused. The Supreme Court clarified that in a case of criminal breach of trust, a person may initially receive property legally, but may later illegally retain or convert it against the terms of a contract. Whether such retention amounts to a criminal offence or only civil liability depends on the facts.
The Supreme Court in Arshad Neyaz Khan also held that if an offence of criminal breach of trust is alleged, the same facts cannot at once support an offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, because for cheating the dishonest intention must be present from the inception. On that reasoning, the Supreme Court held that a complaint cannot contain both offences simultaneously on the same facts.
The Patna High Court further referred to earlier Supreme Court decisions on the limits of criminal proceedings in civil disputes. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court had held that although the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be used sparingly, it should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. The Court quoted paragraph 12 of that judgment, where it was emphasised that the High Court must see whether a dispute which is basically civil is being given the colour of a criminal offence, particularly where civil remedies are available and used.
Relying on Paramjeet Batra, the Court also mentioned Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, where the Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a weapon of harassment. Similarly, in Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, the Supreme Court held that where a dispute essentially of civil nature is given a criminal colour, the High Court can quash such proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
The Court also referred to a recent reiteration by the Supreme Court in S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1575, of the same legal proposition about misuse of criminal law in civil disputes.
After considering the FIR, the complaint, the order taking cognizance, and the above Supreme Court judgments, the Patna High Court came to the conclusion that the Magistrate had failed to appreciate that Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot co-exist simultaneously on the same facts. On the allegations in this case, the content of the dispute was held to be purely civil in nature, connected to an agreement for sale of land and alleged non-execution of a sale deed.
The High Court therefore set aside and quashed the order of cognizance dated 18.12.2015 in Saur Bazar P.S. Case No. 60 of 2015. It observed that the parties are free to settle their dispute amicably or to avail appropriate civil remedies as per law. With this, the quashing application was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for people involved in land and money disputes, especially in rural areas. Many times, when land sale agreements fail or money is not returned, parties rush to file criminal cases for cheating or breach of trust.
The Patna High Court has clearly said that criminal law cannot be used to pressurise the other side in what is really a civil dispute. If the main issue is about enforcing an agreement, sale deed, or returning money, the proper remedy is usually in a civil court, not by filing an FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust on the same facts.
The Court has also followed the Supreme Court’s clear view that Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot be applied together on the same set of facts. This protects ordinary citizens from facing overlapping and unjust criminal charges in disputes that are essentially about contracts and property.
For both buyers and sellers of land, the decision underlines the need to use proper written documents, and to approach civil courts when a deal breaks down, rather than misusing criminal complaints.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC based on the same land transaction could be sustained, where the dispute appeared essentially civil in nature.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot co-exist simultaneously on the same set of facts, and that the allegations were purely civil in nature. It therefore quashed the order of cognizance.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2058
- Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 690 (referred within the quoted Supreme Court passage)
- Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673
- Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626
- Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90
- S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1575
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 42486 of 2016
Arising Out of: Saur Bazar P.S. Case No. 60 of 2015, District Saharsa
Case Title: Kaushalya Devi and Ors v. State of Bihar and Rajbindi Devi
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh
Citation: 2025(4) PLJR 670
Advocates:
- For the petitioners: Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate
- For Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Zeeshan Kalim, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance under Sections 406 and 420 IPC
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment
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.
