Patna High Court
CR. MISC./59483/2023 of RANJIT SINGH Vs The State of Bihar on 13 July 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59483 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-558 Year-2021 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ranjit Singh Son Of Late Bishwanath Singh Resident Of Village- And Po-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59483 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-558 Year-2021 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Ranjit Singh Son Of Late Bishwanath Singh Resident Of Village- And Po- Kathiya, Ps- Kathiya, Distt- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar
2.
Saroj Kumar Singh Son Of Kishori Singh Resident Of Village- And Po- Kathiya, Ps- Kathiya, Distt- Muzaffarpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Raju Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
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
13-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. The order under challenge is the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-XIXth, Muzaffarpur in Criminal Revision No. 54 of 2022 affirming the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the learned C.J.M., N.I. Act, Muzaffarpur, finding a prima facie case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that false allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and the present case is merely a counter blast of one Complaint Case Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59483 of 2023(5) dt.13-07-2026
No. 71 of 2021, lodged by the petitioner against the complainant, which is Annexure-P/3, wherein it has been stated that it was the complainant of the present case i.e. opposite party no. 2, who had taken a cheque from the present petitioner in the name of getting a job for his son and got it bounced subsequently. It has also been submitted that the legal notice was not sent within the stipulated time period of 30 days which has not been considered in its correct perspective.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, however, points out that a limitation petition had also been filed before the court concerned and since the cheque was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds, the present case is made out against the petitioners. It has also been submitted that the original order taking cognizance has been affirmed by the revisional court and there is no illegality in the same. It is further pointed out that the case has reached the stage of explaining of accusation and as such, is ready for trial. It is informed that the mediation proceedings had also failed between the parties on account of the fact that the petitioner refused to make payment to the opposite party no. 2.
5. Taking into consideration all the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that there Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59483 of 2023(5) dt.13-07-2026
appears to be no apparent illegality in the original or the revisional order and further considering that accusations have already been explained, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, as such, the present application stands dismissed.
devendra/- (Soni Shrivastava, J) U T