Ravi Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20049 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3751 Year-2017 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Ravi Ranjan Kumar Son of Sri Mukesh Sinha Resident of VillageMamrejpur, Police Station- Naubatpur, Dist.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Shant Devi Wife of Shailendra Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Neura Road, P.O. and P.S.- Khagaul, Dist.- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 04-04-2024 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also the Complainant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 3751 of 2017 for the offence registered under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 08.09.2017 by the complainant, Shanti Devi.

3. As per the complaint, a piece of land was purchased by the complainant from the petitioner in the year 2015 but he again chose to sell the said land to Smriti Kumari, Rajani Devi and Hirmania Devi through registered sale-deed and this led to a regular dispute on the land in question, he accordingly asked the complainant to refund the amount and as he failed to do, the complaint.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to impress

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20049 of 2024(2) dt.04-04-2024 2/2 upon this Court that since the second transaction does not affect him, no case is made out.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, pointed out that he has criminal antecedent inasmuch as under section 420 of I.P.C., he has three criminal cases under his belt.

6. Learned Counsel for the complainant who also shown his presence in this case pointed out that contrary to the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is another sale deed to show that prior to sell of this land in the month of December, 2015 to him, the land was earlier sold on 24.07.2015 to Ganesh Singh.

7. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner is a habitual offender, is in the habit of creating dispute only to earn maximum money and in that process, he keeps cheating the innocent persons.

8. No case is made out, the Cr. Misc. No. 20049 of 2024 stands dismissed.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Neha/- U T