Patna High Court
CR. MISC./22543/2026 of Mrs. Nikita Vs The State of Bihar on 15 July 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22543 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1796 Year-2021 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District- Patna ====================================================== Mrs. Nikita wife of Kaushal Kumar Resident of 59, Patliputra Colony, PS -Patliputra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22543 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1796 Year-2021 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District- Patna
======================================================
Mrs. Nikita wife of Kaushal Kumar Resident of 59, Patliputra Colony, PS
-Patliputra Dist- Patna At Present Flat No. 1801, Marvella Town Mahagun Modern Society, Sector -78, Noida, Uttar pradesh (Uttar pradesh)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar
2.
Navin Shankar son of late Rajeshwar Lal Resident of Flat No. 5, A.R. Lal Palace, Road no. 2C, G.D. Mishra path, Patliputra Colony, Ps- Patliputra, Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Mani Bhushan Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
15-07-2026 Heard Mr. Mani Bhushan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the State as also Mr. Krishna Nand Jha representing the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1796 (C) of 2021 for the offence registered under sections 420 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The complainant is 72 years old man and as per the complaint, owns a piece of land/building at 59, Patliputra Colony, Patna. The petitioner on the other hand is the daughter- in-law of the elder brother (Vinod Shankar) of the complainant.
4. The allegation is that the property which is worth Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22543 of 2026(5) dt.15-07-2026
four crores, only because she is related to him, agreed to sell it for Rs. 2 crores. While the lady transferred Rs. 1 crore in his account, the different cheques worth Rs. 1 crore were issued, all of which bounced upon presenting it before the bank. When he confronted and sent legal notice, she and her husband, Kaushal Kumar threatened him of dire consequences.
5. Feeling cheated, he came from United Kingdom (where he is residing) to file the complaint and this led to the present case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a litigated property, the families are fighting battle before the competent Civil Court and in that background, since she has not got the full possession, withhold the amount in question.
7. The complainant is represented through Mr. Jha and his submission is that being related to the complainant, she had all the knowledge about the condition of the property, being one of the shareholder, knowingly, agreed to the consideration amount of Rs. 2 crores, while transferring Rs. 1 crore to the account, gave post dated cheques, all of which bounced. Further, upon receiving the legal notice, the old man was threatened of dire consequences. The last submission is that the complaint was registered in the year 2021, five years later, the petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22543 of 2026(5) dt.15-07-2026
has moved before this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that the cognizance has been taken in the year 2024.
9. Having heard the parties and going through the records of the case, the allegation of cheating as also threatening of dire consequences is/are against the petitioner, she has criminal history inasmuch as two criminal cases stand lodged against her, both relating to Sections 406, 420/34 of the IPC. One is Buddha P.S. Case No. 148 of 2021 while the other is S.K. Puri P.S. Case No. 3 of 2024. The complaint was filed in the year 2021 and she has knocked the doors of this Court belatedly.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts, no relief can be extended.
11. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
Vijay Singh/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U T