Chandra Bhushan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22867 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4199 Year-2019 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== CHANDRA BHUSHAN Son of Late Shashi Bhusan Resident of MohallaDanapur Cantt, Near Kali Mandir, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Bihar 2.
Ajay Thirani Son of Late Bhagwan Thirani Resident of Mohalla- Saidpur Nahar, Freinds Colony, P.S.- Kadamkuan, District- Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. J.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Pradeep Narain Thakur, APP For the O.P. No.2 :
Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Ujjawal Raj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-07-2025 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The present application has been filed for seeking indulgence of this Court for the privilege available under Section 482 of Cr.PC by way of setting aside the cognizance order dated 19.02.2020 passed in Complaint Case No.499(C) of 2019 by the learned J.M. 1st Class, Patna, taken against the petitioner under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The parties have partially settled their dispute.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order taking cognizance in a case filed by the O.P. No.2, who is the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22867 of 2021(11) dt.15-07-2025 2/3 tenant of the petitioner. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the O.P. No.2 is his tenant and he has falsely implicated him in a case when he was directed to vacate the premises. An eviction suit bearing eviction suit no.59 of 2019 is pending between the parties in the Court below.
4. The tenant i.e. O.P. No.2 claims that he had given Rs.8 lacs in cash to the petitioner which has not been accepted by the petitioner. He also submits that during pendency of the eviction suit, he has been paying rent regularly in cash but no receipt has been issued by the petitioner.
5. There are disputed questions of facts and this Court will not go into those disputed questions of facts. So far as the O.P. No.2 is concerned, he has vacated the premises and returned the key to the petitioner in this Court today. The O.P. No.2 has also submitted that he does not want to contest any criminal case with his ex-landlord now.
6. In these circumstances, this application is allowed. The cognizance order dated 19.02.2020 and the entire proceedings against the petitioner arising out of Complaint Case No.499(C) of 2019 is hereby quashed. The proceedings of the eviction suit no.59 of 2019 shall be dropped.
7. If the petitioner wants he can prefer money suit for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22867 of 2021(11) dt.15-07-2025 3/3 alleged arrears of rent.
8. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the arrears of rent.
(Sandeep Kumar, J) shikha/- U T