PATNA, India, Sept. 17 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 18:

Heard Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Arvind Kumar, in-person/O.P. No.4.

At the outset, a joint attention was drawn that inadvertently in order no. 9 dated 25.07.2025, O.P. No.4 was mentioned as O.P. No. 2. Considering typographical error, same be read as O.P. No.4, upon correction.

2. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the 'Cr.P.C.')/528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the 'B.N.S.S.'), for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 05.03.2025, passed by Ms. Ankita Raj, learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Patna, whereby and whereunder learned Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance of the offences under section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in connection with FIR No. 556/2021 lodged on 01.10.2021 at Patrakar Nagar Police Station, Patna by informant/O.P. No.4.

3. At the outset, it would be apposite to mention that petitioners preferred Cr.W.J.C. No. 158 of 2023 before this Hon'ble Court on 06.01.2023 for quashing the FIR dated 01.10.2021 arising out of Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 556/2021, which on the date of filing of present petition was pending for adjudication.

4. An interim order dated 01.05.2025 was passed by this Court, through which proceeding before the learned trial court in aforesaid matter was stayed till further order as:

"01.05.2025: 1. It is submitted by Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned senior counsel appearing for above named petitioners that present criminal case was lodged, when petitioners raised lawful demand for balance payment of Rs. 55 lacs from opposite party no. 4 in connection with purchase of property/show room in Mumbai. It is submitted that dispute which prima facie appears civil in nature was given criminal colour in the circumstance when, petitioners never visited Patna. It is submitted that no criminal case as alleged appears prima facie make out against petitioners and, therefore, the present impugned order of cognizance dated 05.03.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna is fit to be set aside/quashed, in view of legal ratio as available through State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335

2. Considering the aforesaid submission as raised by Mr. Shrivastava, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners, let further proceedings qua above named five petitioners shall remain stayed till further order.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiMyOTMxMyMyMDI1IzEjTg==-frAiIWVv2kI=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.