{"id":30558,"date":"2011-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011"},"modified":"2017-03-07T22:08:06","modified_gmt":"2017-03-07T16:38:06","slug":"faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Faiz Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
Faiz Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 November, 2011<\/div>\n
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                         Criminal Miscellaneous No.36923 of 2008\n              1. Faiz Ahmad, son of Shamim Ahmad, Director Marketing,\n                 M\/s. Logtek (India) Pvt. Limited, at 403, F.I.E. Patparganj,\n                 Delhi-110092.\n              2. R. Chhabra, son of N.D. Chhabra, Technical Director, M\/s.\n                 Logotech (India) Pvt. Limited, at 403, F.I.E., Patparganj,\n                 Delhi-110092.\n              3. I.A. Hashmi, son of Late Dr. Ahmad Ali Hashmi, Sales\n                 Executive, M\/s. Logotech (India) Pvt. Limited, At 403,\n                 F.I.E., Patparganj, Officer, Delhi-110092.\n                 ...............................................................Petitioners.\n\n                                            Versus\n\n               1. The State Of Bihar.\n               2. Dr. Ira Sinha, wife of Dr. O.P. Singh, Prachi Pathology\n                  Clinic, Gaushala Road, District-Siwan.\n                  ....................................................Opposite Parties.\n\n                                ----------------------------------\n\n                   For the Petitioners: M\/s. Md. Helal Ahmad and S. Tabrez,\n                                        Advocates.\n                   For the State      : Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P.\n                   For O.P. No.2      : Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh,\n                                        Advocate.\n\n                               ------------------------------------\n\n                                       O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
4.   16.11.2011.               Through this application, the petitioners have<\/p>\n
                       invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court<\/p>\n
                       under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
                       for quashing the order dated 29.8.2008 passed in Siwan<\/p>\n
                       Muffasil P.S. Case No.61 of 2008 by the Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
                       Magistrate, Siwan, taking cognizance of the offences
\n                2<\/span><\/p>\n
under Sections 406, 420, 384 and 386\/34 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
         2.    In brief, the facts, leading to this<\/p>\n
application, are that on the basis of the written report of<\/p>\n
the informant-opposite party no.2, Dr. Ira Sinha, Siwan<\/p>\n
Muffasil P.S. Case No.61 of 2008 under Sections 420,<\/p>\n
406, 384 and 386\/34 of the Indian Penal Code was<\/p>\n
lodged against the accused-petitioners. In the written<\/p>\n
report, the informant-opposite party no.2 alleged that<\/p>\n
she is running the clinic in the name of Prachi<\/p>\n
Pathology at Goshala Road, Siwan. For the clinic, she<\/p>\n
had purchased an auto- Analyser Ecco Plus Machine<\/p>\n
from Logotech India Private Limited, 403, F.I.E.,<\/p>\n
Patparganj, P.S. Mandawali, Delhi-92 in the year 2006<\/p>\n
on   payment       of   Rs.7,00,000\/-.      Finding    the<\/p>\n
manufacturing defect, the said machine was replaced<\/p>\n
by a new one and the second machine supplied by the<\/p>\n
company again and again went out of order. Sri Faiz<\/p>\n
Ahmad, the Marketing Director, Sri R. Chhabra,<\/p>\n
Technical Director and the Sale Executive, Sri I.A.<\/p>\n
Hashmi and the engineers were also facing hardship in<\/p>\n
repairing the machine and they told that there is
\n               3<\/span><\/p>\n
manufacturing defect in the machine. Then she asked<\/p>\n
them to return the price of the machine on which they<\/p>\n
told that the company has launched a new Fully<\/p>\n
Automatic Random Access Analyser Miyura-200<\/p>\n
Machine which is trouble free and if any defect would<\/p>\n
be find out in the machine, that will be removed within<\/p>\n
three years and the defects will be rectified within five<\/p>\n
days without costs.     The aforesaid officials of the<\/p>\n
company also told that the running machine would be<\/p>\n
replaced by Miyura Machine-200 on additional<\/p>\n
payment of Rs.4,00,000\/-.       While she refused to<\/p>\n
purchase the Miyura Machine-200 but on allurement<\/p>\n
she became ready to replace the auto- Analyser Ecco<\/p>\n
Plus Machine by Miyura Machine-200 on additional<\/p>\n
payment of Rs.4,00,000\/- on assurance given by them<\/p>\n
that if the machine will not function properly, the price<\/p>\n
of the same would be returned within three years.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the agreement deed was prepared on the<\/p>\n
stamp paper of Rs.100\/- and Miyura Machine-200 was<\/p>\n
installed on 3.9.2007 on full payment. Thereafter, on<\/p>\n
6th of March, 2008, the said machine became out of<\/p>\n
order and information was given to the accused-
\n               4<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioners no.1 and 2 on which one Engineer, N.S.<\/p>\n
Rao, was sent by them on 10.3.2008, who failed to<\/p>\n
brought the machine in functioning order. In course of<\/p>\n
opening the parts of the machine, the screw driver<\/p>\n
slipped from his hand causing hole in the tube of the<\/p>\n
machine. On asking him to replace the tube, he told<\/p>\n
that the accused-petitioners no.1 and 2 have instructed<\/p>\n
him to replace any part of the machine taking the price<\/p>\n
of the part. Thereafter, she informed on phone to the<\/p>\n
petitioners no.1 and 2 and also sent the message<\/p>\n
through fax and telegram about the non functioning of<\/p>\n
the machine. Thereafter, she received the fax message<\/p>\n
and also a letter on 17.3.2008 from accused-petitioner<\/p>\n
no.2, R. Chhabra and second letter on 20.3.2008 from<\/p>\n
accused-petitioner no.1, Faiz Ahmad. On reading the<\/p>\n
letter she became surprised as through the letter she<\/p>\n
was asked to send the written letter and, thereafter, the<\/p>\n
machine would be repaired. The informant-opposite<\/p>\n
party no.2 talked to them on several occasions on<\/p>\n
phone to repair the machine saying that otherwise she<\/p>\n
would take the shelter of the Court on which they<\/p>\n
became annoyed and started to speak in absurd
\n                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
language saying that they would take care if the dispute<\/p>\n
is raised in the court. On 21.3.2008, one Sahnawaz<\/p>\n
Ullah, the Engineer of the said Company, had come to<\/p>\n
repair the machine at the clinic of Dr. O.P. Singh and<\/p>\n
when request was made to him to repair her machine<\/p>\n
also, then he replied that he has been forbidden by the<\/p>\n
petitioners no.1 and 2 to repair the machine unless the<\/p>\n
letter is not sent. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that the<\/p>\n
accused persons with an intention to illegal gain<\/p>\n
grabbed the money under conspiracy in supplying the<\/p>\n
machine and due to that reasons, she is suffering from<\/p>\n
mental agony.\n<\/p>\n
         3.   The police on investigation of the case<\/p>\n
submitted the chargesheet in the court of the Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, who on perusal of the<\/p>\n
chargesheet and case diary took the cognizance of the<\/p>\n
offence through the impugned order dated 29.8.2008<\/p>\n
under Sections 406, 420, 384 and 386\/34 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code against the accused-petitioners.<\/p>\n
         4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
petitioners submitted that after around seven months of<\/p>\n
the installation of the Miyura Machine-200, the
\n               6<\/span><\/p>\n
officials of the company on receiving the complaint of<\/p>\n
the informant-opposite party no.2 regarding some<\/p>\n
problem in the machine, immediately sent the<\/p>\n
concerned Engineer to rectify the same without any<\/p>\n
delay and on inquiry, it was found that the trouble was<\/p>\n
due to the rat cut in the tube of the machine due to the<\/p>\n
negligence on the part of the informant-opposite party<\/p>\n
no.2.   The tube was changed and the matter was<\/p>\n
immediately informed the informant-opposite party<\/p>\n
no.2 in writing by the company to the effect that in<\/p>\n
future it may not be possible to supply free of cost any<\/p>\n
spare part for which Logotech cannot control, which<\/p>\n
would appear from Annexure-‘7’ to this application but<\/p>\n
despite of that the informant-opposite party no.2 started<\/p>\n
to give threatening and lodged the present case<\/p>\n
implicating the petitioners. It is further submitted that<\/p>\n
in spite of lodging of the present case by the informant-<\/p>\n
opposite party no.2, on receiving the complaint about<\/p>\n
the defect in the machine supplied to the informant-<\/p>\n
opposite party no.2, it was diligently and sincerely<\/p>\n
attended by the employees and the concerned Engineer<\/p>\n
of the Company, which would appear from the Service
\n               7<\/span><\/p>\n
Report dated 1.4.2008 as contained in Annexure-‘8’ to<\/p>\n
this application. It is also contended that from perusal<\/p>\n
of the allegations as made in the F.I.R., it would appear<\/p>\n
that simply the case would be made out for non<\/p>\n
fulfillment of the agreement entered into in between the<\/p>\n
petitioners on behalf of the company and the<\/p>\n
informant-opposite party no.2 in business transaction<\/p>\n
and no offence of criminal breach of trust, cheating or<\/p>\n
extortion is made out against the accused-petitioners.<\/p>\n
If the informant-opposite party no.2 has any grievance,<\/p>\n
the remedy is available to her in civil forum for<\/p>\n
redressal of her grievance and placed reliance on a<\/p>\n
decision of a Bench of this Court in case of the<\/p>\n
Managing Director Vs. Dr. Hari Krishna Singh and<\/p>\n
another {2010 (4) PLJR 136}.\n<\/p>\n
        5. On bare reading of the F.I.R., it appears<\/p>\n
that the allegation of the informant-opposite party no.2<\/p>\n
is that the petitioners, who are officials of the M\/s.<\/p>\n
Logotech (India) Private Limited, have supplied the<\/p>\n
Miyura Machine-200 by replacing the auto-Analyser<\/p>\n
Ecco Plus Machine supplied earlier to her on taking an<\/p>\n
additional amount of Rs.4,00,000\/- with an assurance
\n                8<\/span><\/p>\n
that the machine is trouble free and if any defect would<\/p>\n
be pointed out, that will be repaired within three years<\/p>\n
but on coming defect in the machine that has not been<\/p>\n
removed by the petitioners and the allegation is that the<\/p>\n
demand was made on behalf of the petitioners for the<\/p>\n
price of the parts in removing the defect in Machine<\/p>\n
Miyura-200. The informant-opposite party no.2 made<\/p>\n
averment in the F.I.R. of suffering from the mental<\/p>\n
agony due to not taking care to repair the machine by<\/p>\n
the petitioners’ company.\n<\/p>\n
        6.    In the case of the Managing Director<\/p>\n
(Supra), a Bench of this Court held that the<\/p>\n
complainant    appears   making     averments    in   the<\/p>\n
complaint petition of incurring losses on different<\/p>\n
counts due to the supply of a defective machine by the<\/p>\n
company. It is true that he has attempted to make out a<\/p>\n
case of cheating, defrauding and misappropriating his<\/p>\n
money, but basically, it could not be said that the same<\/p>\n
was done knowingly with an intent to cheat as in<\/p>\n
matters of the present nature, no manufacturer could be<\/p>\n
held having intent to cheat while supplying his<\/p>\n
products to a customer. The intent is to earn goodwill.
\n               9<\/span><\/p>\n
However, the allegation of incurring damages may in<\/p>\n
an appropriate case, like the one in hand, give rise to<\/p>\n
appropriate causes of action before the Consumer<\/p>\n
forum.\n<\/p>\n
         On perusal of the F.I.R. itself, it could not be<\/p>\n
said that the machine was supplied to the informant-<\/p>\n
opposite party no.2 knowingly with intent to cheat or<\/p>\n
price of the machine has been taken by the petitioners<\/p>\n
by putting the informant-opposite party no.2 or any<\/p>\n
person in fear amounting to extortion. However, the<\/p>\n
allegation as made in the F.I.R. incurring monetary loss<\/p>\n
of supplying defective machine, Miyura-200 and<\/p>\n
mental agony due to non providing the service to<\/p>\n
remove the defect of machine may in appropriate cases<\/p>\n
give rise the cause of action for prosecuting before the<\/p>\n
Consumer forum. As such, initiation of the criminal<\/p>\n
proceeding by taking cognizance through the impugned<\/p>\n
order dated 29.8.2008 passed in Siwan Muffasil P.S.<\/p>\n
Case No.61 of 2008 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Siwan, appears to be an abuse of the process of the<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n
         7. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances
\n                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
              of the case, the impugned order dated 29.8.2008 passed<\/p>\n
              in Siwan Muffasil P.S. Case No.61 of 2008 by the<\/p>\n
              Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, is hereby quashed<\/p>\n
              and the application is allowed. However, it is made<\/p>\n
              clear that the informant-opposite party no.2 shall have<\/p>\n
              liberty to agitate the grievance before an appropriate<\/p>\n
              forum like Consumer forum or Commission.<\/p>\n
                                  (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)<\/p>\n
P.S.\/A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders Faiz Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 November, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.36923 of 2008 1. Faiz Ahmad, son of Shamim Ahmad, Director Marketing, M\/s. Logtek (India) Pvt. Limited, at 403, F.I.E. Patparganj, Delhi-110092. 2. R. Chhabra, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nFaiz Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Faiz Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-07T16:38:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Faiz Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-07T16:38:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1639,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Faiz Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-07T16:38:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Faiz Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Faiz Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Faiz Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-07T16:38:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Faiz Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-07T16:38:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011"},"wordCount":1639,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011","name":"Faiz Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-07T16:38:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/faiz-ahmad-ors-vs-the-state-of-bihar-anr-on-16-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Faiz Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 November, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30558","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30558"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30558\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30558"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30558"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30558"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}