Dinesh Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56664 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2020 Thana- MADHUBANI TOWN DistrictMadhubani ====================================================== DINESH RAM Son of Biltu Ram R/V- Lalganj, P.S- Kewti, Dist- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-09-2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State along with learned counsel for the informant.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present application has been filed seeking quashing of the F.I.R. being Madhubani Nagar P.S. Case No. 99 of 2020 registered under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 323, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that petitioner is own son-in-law of the brother of the informant and the informant alleges that the petitioner cheated him of Rs. 10 Lacs in name of getting appointment in a reputed institution and out of Rs. 10 Lacs, he paid Rs. 50,000/- through
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56664 of 2022(3) dt.04-09-2023 2/3 bank transfer and further on 19.02.2020, the petitioner along with 2-4 unknown persons came and threatened him of dire consequences in the name of being member of a gang which indulges in cheating in name of getting employment and snatches chain on point of pistol.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that what is not disputed rather stands admitted is that petitioner is own son-in-law of the brother of the informant. It is next submitted that there was a dispute in the family based on which the present false case came to be instituted. It is next submitted that informant had taken a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- for constructing his house, but was not returning the amount and when the same was demanded, the present false case came to be instituted. It is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting, then whether the Court can perpetuate an illegality when the informant himself alleges that he was willing to get a backdoor appointment by making payment through backdoor, it is further submitted that, on intervention of well-wishers, the parties have entered into a compromise realizing that the case came to be instituted in haste.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56664 of 2022(3) dt.04-09-2023 3/3
5. The learned counsel for the informant also does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that he has no objection in the event if the F.I.R. is quashed.
6. Considering the submissions made by the parties, the F.I.R. being Madhubani Nagar P.S. Case No. 99 of 2020 registered under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 323, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code stands quashed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T