{"id":51663,"date":"2010-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-04-21T14:31:41","modified_gmt":"2017-04-21T09:01:41","slug":"kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kantishab vs The State Of Bihar on 27 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Kantishab vs The State Of Bihar on 27 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Rakesh Kumar<\/div>\n
               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23957 OF 1998\n                               ----\n<\/pre>\n
             In the matter of an application under Section
\n             482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.\n<\/p>\n
                               —-\n<\/p>\n
           KANTI SHAH, SON OF KANTI DAMJI BHAI SHAH, RESIDENT
\n           OF 1\/17, NEW SUJATA BUILDING, JUHU TARA ROAD, SANTA
\n           CRUZ, WEST BOMBAY.\n<\/p>\n
                   ...                 ...   PETITIOENR.\n                              Versus\n       1. THE STATE OF BIHAR\n<\/pre>\n
       2. ANANT PRASAD ANAND, SON OF SRI KASHI PRASAD,
\n           PROPRIETOR SANKAT MOCHAN PICTURES, 3, NARMADA
\n           APARTMENT, EXHIBITION ROAD, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAIN,
\n           DISTRICT PATNA.\n<\/p>\n
                   ...                 ... OPPOSITE PARTIES.\n                               ----\n       For the Petitioner       : M\/S Ashwani Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv.\n                                       Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv.\n       For O.P. No.2            : M\/S Syed Arshad Alam, Adv.\n                                       Gautam Kumar Yadav, Adv.\n       For the State            : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, A.P.P.\n                               ----\n                           P R E S E N T\n\n<\/pre>\n
                  THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR\n<\/p>\n
                                 —-\n<\/p>\n
Rakesh Kumar,J.               The    sole      petitioner,         while    invoking<\/p>\n
                   inherent    jurisdiction            of    this    Court       under<\/p>\n
                   Section     482        of     the        Code    of      Criminal<\/p>\n
                   Procedure,       has     prayed      for    quashing       of    an<\/p>\n
                   order dated 29.4.1998 passed by Smt. Sushma<\/p>\n
                   Sinha,      Judicial          Magistrate,             Patna      in<\/p>\n
                   Complaint Case No.382(c) of 1998. By the said<\/p>\n
                   order,      learned           Magistrate           has        taken<\/p>\n
                   cognizance of offence under Section 420 of<\/p>\n
                   the   Indian      Penal       Code        and    directed       for<\/p>\n
                   summoning the petitioner to face trial.<\/p>\n
                              2.    Short      fact    of    the    case    is   that
\n                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the<\/p>\n
court    of    Chief       Judicial          Magistrate,        Patna,<\/p>\n
which     was       registered            as     Complaint         Case<\/p>\n
No.382(c) of 1998. The complaint was filed<\/p>\n
against the sole petitioner for the offence<\/p>\n
under    Sections          406      and    420    of    the     Indian<\/p>\n
Penal     Code.           It     was      alleged        that      the<\/p>\n
complainant         had        approached        the     petitioner<\/p>\n
telephonically            from      his      Patna      office     for<\/p>\n
distribution,             exploitation           and     exhibition<\/p>\n
right of a picture, namely, LOHA in Hindi for<\/p>\n
the territory of Bihar and Nepal. Initially,<\/p>\n
the total amount was fixed to the tune of<\/p>\n
Rs.34 lakhs. However, on request made by the<\/p>\n
complainant, the amount was reduced to Rs.28<\/p>\n
lakhs and petitioner in the month of February<\/p>\n
and     March,      1997       made       initial       payment     of<\/p>\n
Rs.6.26       lakhs       on     different        dates.      In   the<\/p>\n
complaint        petition,          it     was       asserted      that<\/p>\n
complainant         went       to    Mumbai       and     paid     the<\/p>\n
balance        amount          to      the       petitioner        and<\/p>\n
thereafter, a final receipt dated 16.10.1997<\/p>\n
of    full    and     final         payment       was    made.      The<\/p>\n
complainant        has     stated         that    the    petitioner<\/p>\n
informed the complainant for release of film<\/p>\n
‘LOHA’        on      17.10.1997.              The      complainant
\n                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
disclosed in the complaint petition that the<\/p>\n
petitioner sent a registration letter dated<\/p>\n
15.2.1997      to       the     Secretary,       Bihar        Motion<\/p>\n
Picture     Association            for   LOHA         picture    in<\/p>\n
favour of the complainant for Bihar and Nepal<\/p>\n
territory for seven years from the date of<\/p>\n
first release in the said territory, which<\/p>\n
was subsequently, registered for the period<\/p>\n
of ten years. Accordingly, the said film was<\/p>\n
registered       to        be     displayed         within      the<\/p>\n
territory of Bihar and Nepal in favour of M\/S<\/p>\n
Sankat      Mochan            Pictures      of        which      the<\/p>\n
complainant         was       Proprietor.        It     has     been<\/p>\n
alleged     in      the         complaint      petition         that<\/p>\n
subsequently,        the       petitioner      had     given     the<\/p>\n
said right in favour of one M\/S Viratnagar<\/p>\n
Picture Exchange, Viratnagar, Nepal. It was<\/p>\n
asserted       by       the       complainant          that     the<\/p>\n
petitioner had cheated the complainant by way<\/p>\n
of   giving         the         right    of      distribution,<\/p>\n
exploitation         and        exhibition       of     the     film<\/p>\n
‘LOHA’    to     M\/S      Viratnagar        Picture      Exchange<\/p>\n
whereas initially the payment was made by the<\/p>\n
complainant for being appointed for both the<\/p>\n
areas i.e. Bihar and Nepal and agreement was<\/p>\n
already    entered         in    between      the     complainant
\n                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
and     the     petitioner.             The     complainant       has<\/p>\n
asserted        that       due     to    the     said    act,     the<\/p>\n
petitioner       had       cheated       and    mis-appropriated<\/p>\n
the amount to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs of the<\/p>\n
complainant.           After        filing        the     complaint<\/p>\n
petition,       the        complainant         was     examined    on<\/p>\n
S.A. and in support                 of complaint petition,<\/p>\n
witnesses were examined, who corroborated the<\/p>\n
stand of the complainant and thereafter, by<\/p>\n
the     impugned           order    i.e.        by   order      dated<\/p>\n
29.4.1998,        the         learned          Magistrate        took<\/p>\n
cognizance of offence under Section 420 of<\/p>\n
the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
           3.     Aggrieved             with     the     order     of\n\ncognizance,       the        petitioner         approached       this\n\nCourt    by     filing        the       present      petition.     On\n\n<\/pre>\n
23.12.1998, the petitioner was permitted to<\/p>\n
add the complainant of the case as opposite<\/p>\n
party    no.2     and       the     case       was   admitted     for<\/p>\n
hearing.        Since        opposite          party     no.2     had<\/p>\n
already       entered       his     appearance         through    his<\/p>\n
advocate, no notice was directed to be issued<\/p>\n
to him. This Court further directed that till<\/p>\n
disposal of this case, further proceeding in<\/p>\n
Complaint Case No.382(c) of 1998 in the court<\/p>\n
below shall remain stayed. The order of stay
\n                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
is still continuing. After the admission of<\/p>\n
the case in the year 2003, an Interlocutory<\/p>\n
Application       vide      I.A.   No.1172      of     2002   was<\/p>\n
filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 for<\/p>\n
vacating the stay. However, same was rejected<\/p>\n
on 31.3.2003.\n<\/p>\n
          4. Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned<\/p>\n
Senior    Counsel      appearing         on   behalf     of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner,       while      challenging       the     impugned<\/p>\n
order,    submits        that      the     perusal      of    the<\/p>\n
complaint petition itself makes it clear that<\/p>\n
the petitioner never intended to cheat                         the<\/p>\n
complainant. It has been submitted by Shri<\/p>\n
Singh that after appointing the complainant<\/p>\n
for exploiting and displaying the film ‘LOHA’<\/p>\n
within the territory of Bihar and Nepal, the<\/p>\n
petitioner    had        taken     sincere     step     and    he<\/p>\n
informed the Secretary, Bihar Motion Picture<\/p>\n
Association, Patna regarding the said right<\/p>\n
of    exclusive    distribution,           exploitation       and<\/p>\n
exhibition    of            film   title      ‘LOHA’    to     M\/S<\/p>\n
Sankat     Mochan        Pictures,         Patna       for    the<\/p>\n
territory of Bihar and Nepal. The said letter<\/p>\n
was      issued        on      15.2.1997,          which      was<\/p>\n
subsequently,          corrected         by    letter        dated<\/p>\n
18.3.1997 whereby the period of seven years
\n                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
was     enhanced            to    ten        years.          It     has    been<\/p>\n
submitted         by    Shri          Singh       that        Nepal       Motion<\/p>\n
Picture       Association               was       not    agreeable           for<\/p>\n
entrusting the said right to the complainant<\/p>\n
and    as     such      vide           letter      dated           27.5.1997,<\/p>\n
which was sent through the complainant i.e.<\/p>\n
M\/S    Sankat          Mochan          Pictures,             the    Secretary<\/p>\n
Nepal       Motion               Pictures          Association               was<\/p>\n
communicated for giving such right. It was<\/p>\n
submitted that the portion regarding the name<\/p>\n
of    purchaser         of       the    right       was        kept       blank.<\/p>\n
Learned       counsel             for        the        petitioner           has<\/p>\n
further, while referring to Annexure-1 to the<\/p>\n
petition, submitted that even after receipt<\/p>\n
of    letter      dated          27.6.1997,             which       has    been<\/p>\n
annexed      as     Annexure-4               to    the        petition       (at<\/p>\n
page-30), the complainant had made full and<\/p>\n
final        payment              to        the         petitioner            on<\/p>\n
16.10.1997.             Accordingly,                    it         has      been<\/p>\n
submitted      that          after       being          fully       satisfied<\/p>\n
that there were difficulty in entrusting the<\/p>\n
said        right           to         the        complainant,               the<\/p>\n
complainant         agreed            for     exercising            his     said<\/p>\n
right to the territory of Bihar and as such<\/p>\n
final payment was made. It has been submitted<\/p>\n
that    the    chain             of    events,          which       has     been
\n                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
incorporated in the complaint petition itself<\/p>\n
clarifies       that       the    petitioner          had    never<\/p>\n
intended       to   cheat      the     complainant.         It   has<\/p>\n
been alternatively argued by learned Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel for the petitioner that hardly it can<\/p>\n
be said that it was a breach of contract and<\/p>\n
for such act, the complainant was entitled to<\/p>\n
approach the court of civil jurisdiction. In<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances of the present<\/p>\n
case, the complainant was not at all entitled<\/p>\n
to   approach            the          court      of     criminal<\/p>\n
jurisdiction         and       similarly,        the        learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate has exceeded its jurisdiction by<\/p>\n
way of entertaining the said complaint and<\/p>\n
thereafter,         by   way     of    proceeding      with      the<\/p>\n
said case.\n<\/p>\n
           5. Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned<\/p>\n
Senior     Counsel         for        the     petitioner,        has<\/p>\n
referred to a case law reported in 2007(7)<\/p>\n
SCC 373 (Vir Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar<\/p>\n
Agarwal    &    another).        It     has    been    submitted<\/p>\n
that in a case where the court is satisfied<\/p>\n
that the entire complaint petition, if taken<\/p>\n
to be correct in its entirety do not disclose<\/p>\n
an offence, this Court is entitled to quash<\/p>\n
the entire proceeding while exercising power
\n                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
under    Section        482   of     the    Code    of       Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
has further relied on a case law reported in<\/p>\n
2005(10) Supreme Court Cases 336(Uma Shankar<\/p>\n
Gopalika    Vs.     State      of     Bihar).      It        has    been<\/p>\n
submitted by Shri Singh, on the basis of Uma<\/p>\n
Shankar    Gopalika’s          case        (Supra),          that    for<\/p>\n
constituting an offence under Section 420 of<\/p>\n
the Code of Criminal Procedure, it has to be<\/p>\n
established       that        there        was     intention          of<\/p>\n
cheating    from        the    very    inception.             Even    if<\/p>\n
such    intention        is    developed         later        on,    the<\/p>\n
same    would    not     amount       to    cheating.          It    has<\/p>\n
been submitted by Shri Singh that the whole<\/p>\n
complaint       categorically          specifies             that    the<\/p>\n
petitioner had never intended to cheat the<\/p>\n
complainant and even the final payment by the<\/p>\n
complainant       was         made     after       being           fully<\/p>\n
satisfied       that     it     was    difficult             for     the<\/p>\n
petitioner to give the right of displaying<\/p>\n
and distribution of the film ‘LOHA’ within<\/p>\n
the     territory       of     Nepal       and     as    such        the<\/p>\n
learned    Magistrate          had    committed          a    serious<\/p>\n
error,    while     taking         cognizance           of    offence<\/p>\n
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in<\/p>\n
absence of any material or fact disclosing
\n                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
commission of offence under Section 420 of<\/p>\n
the Indian Penal Code. Learned Senior Counsel<\/p>\n
for    the    petitioner        has   referred      number    of<\/p>\n
case laws on the aforesaid points. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner has further taken<\/p>\n
a stand that no cause of action arose within<\/p>\n
the territorial jurisdiction of the court at<\/p>\n
Patna and as such the learned Magistrate was<\/p>\n
not    authorized        to    entertain      the     complaint<\/p>\n
petition and take cognizance of the offence.<\/p>\n
On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner has prayed for setting aside<\/p>\n
the impugned order of cognizance.<\/p>\n
             6.    Mr.   Syed      Arshad     Alam,     learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party<\/p>\n
no.2, has vehemently opposed the prayer                       of<\/p>\n
the    petitioner.       It    has    been    argued    by   Mr.<\/p>\n
Alam    that       the   contents       of    the     complaint<\/p>\n
petition          categorically        states       that     the<\/p>\n
petitioner        had    cheated      the    complainant.     It<\/p>\n
has     been       submitted         that     initially      the<\/p>\n
petitioner had agreed to give the right of<\/p>\n
distribution, exploitation and exhibition of<\/p>\n
the film ‘LOHA’ within the territory of Bihar<\/p>\n
as well as Nepal and thereafter, the payment<\/p>\n
was     made       by    the     complainant.          However,
\n                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
subsequently, the complainant noticed that he<\/p>\n
was cheated by the petitioner and in place of<\/p>\n
the complainant, one M\/S Viratnagar Films was<\/p>\n
given said right for total amount of Rs.7.5<\/p>\n
lakhs only on 18.10.1997. Mr. Arshad Alam,<\/p>\n
learned     counsel        appearing        on     behalf       of<\/p>\n
opposite party no.2, has submitted that on<\/p>\n
the basis of materials on record, the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate      has      rightly   taken     cognizance         of<\/p>\n
the offence. It has been submitted that time<\/p>\n
without number, it has been clarified that at<\/p>\n
the     initial     or     interlocutory         stage    of    a<\/p>\n
criminal        proceeding,        this      Court       should<\/p>\n
refrain from exercising power under Section<\/p>\n
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has<\/p>\n
been submitted that it is not a fit case for<\/p>\n
exercising      power      under   Section       482     of    the<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the<\/p>\n
petitioner.       It     has    further     been    submitted<\/p>\n
that whatever pleas have been taken by the<\/p>\n
petitioner can well be taken at appropriate<\/p>\n
stage       before          the         concerned        court.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the<\/p>\n
present petition.\n<\/p>\n
           7.      Shri        A.M.P.      Mehta,        learned\n\nAdditional        Public       Prosecutor     appearing         on\n                        11<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
behalf of the State, has supported the stand<\/p>\n
of Mr. Arshad Alam, learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
on behalf of opposite party no.2.<\/p>\n
             8.    Besides            hearing       learned      counsel<\/p>\n
for    the    parties,            I    have     also      perused      the<\/p>\n
materials         available            on   record        particularly<\/p>\n
the contents of the complaint petition and<\/p>\n
the impugned order. After going through the<\/p>\n
contents of the complaint petition, the court<\/p>\n
is    satisfied        that        there      is    no    material      to<\/p>\n
indicate      that          petitioner         has       committed      an<\/p>\n
offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code.    From      the        contents         of    the    complaint<\/p>\n
petition, it is evident that the petitioner<\/p>\n
never    intended             to       cheat       the     petitioner.<\/p>\n
Moreover, from the contents of the complaint<\/p>\n
petition      itself,          it      appears       that       full   and<\/p>\n
final    payment            was    made      by     the    complainant<\/p>\n
even    after      knowing            the     fact       that    it    was<\/p>\n
difficult for the petitioner to give the said<\/p>\n
right to the complainant and M\/S Viratnagar<\/p>\n
Film    was        entrusted            with        the     right       of<\/p>\n
exploitation            and           exhibition          within       the<\/p>\n
territory         of    Nepal.         The     court       is    of    the<\/p>\n
opinion that dispute in between the parties<\/p>\n
can be termed as a dispute of purely civil in
\n                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
nature, for which the criminal court may not<\/p>\n
be allowed to proceed with the case.<\/p>\n
           9.     Accordingly,       the     order     of\n\ncognizance        dated      29.4.1998      passed     in\n\nComplaint       Case    No.382(c)   of   1998   by   Smt.\n\nSushma   Sinha,        learned   Judicial   Magistrate,\n\n<\/pre>\n
Patna is hereby set aside and petition stands<\/p>\n
allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)<\/p>\n
PATNA HIGH COURT
\nDated 27th October,2010
\nN.A.F.R.\/N.H.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Kantishab vs The State Of Bihar on 27 October, 2010 Author: Rakesh Kumar CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23957 OF 1998 —- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. —- KANTI SHAH, SON OF KANTI DAMJI BHAI SHAH, RESIDENT OF 1\/17, NEW SUJATA BUILDING, JUHU TARA ROAD, […]<\/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":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51663","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKantishab vs The State Of Bihar on 27 October, 2010 - 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\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kantishab vs The State Of Bihar on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-21T09:01:41+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kantishab vs The State Of Bihar on 27 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-21T09:01:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1933,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Kantishab vs The State Of Bihar on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-21T09:01:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kantishab vs The State Of Bihar on 27 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Kantishab vs The State Of Bihar on 27 October, 2010 - 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\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kantishab vs The State Of Bihar on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-21T09:01:41+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kantishab vs The State Of Bihar on 27 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-21T09:01:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010"},"wordCount":1933,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010","name":"Kantishab vs The State Of Bihar on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-21T09:01:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantishab-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kantishab vs The State Of Bihar on 27 October, 2010"}]},{"@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\/51663","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=51663"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51663\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51663"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51663"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51663"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}