Patna High Court
SANJEET SHARMAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The order of cognizance dated 07‑01‑2020 is quashed as the prosecution is mala fide.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjeet Sharma, sought quashing of the order of cognizance dated 07‑01‑2020 issued by a Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in connection with a FIR alleging sexual assault and related offences. The FIR, filed by a 50‑year‑old informant, alleged that Sharma outraged the modesty of the informant’s daughter and that other persons also assaulted her. The petitioner argued that the informant is a habitual litigant, previous complaints by her resulted in acquittals, and key witnesses turned hostile, indicating mala fide prosecution. The Court examined its quashing jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and relied on precedents such as Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State, Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana, and Salib v. State of U.P. The Court held that the prosecution was an abuse of process and quashed the order of cognizance, allowing the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of cognizance dated 07‑01‑2020 can be quashed on the ground of mala fide prosecution.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash proceedings at an advanced stage under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the history of the informant’s prior litigations and hostile witnesses constitute abuse of the judicial process.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 354, 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 8
Subjects
- quash jurisdiction
- mala fide prosecution
- abuse of process
- POCSO Act
- IPC sections
- Section 528
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- High Court order of cognizance
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55205 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-702 Year-2019 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna
======================================================
SANJEET SHARMA S/O RAMNATH SHARMA R/o village- Fatehpur, P.S.-
Naubatpur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar
2. JINAT KHATOON W/o Md. Wasardeen Ansari R/o village- Fatehpur, P.S.-
Naubatpur, District- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Patanjali Rishi, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order of cognizance
dated 07.01.2020 passed in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case
No. 702 of 2019 by which the learned Special Judge, Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has taken cognizance of
the offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. Notice was issued in the matter on 10.03.2026.
Notice was received by the grandson of the informant. A jointness
petition was filed by the counsel for the petitioner on 24.04.2026
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55205 of 2021 dt.22-06-2026
2/5
stating that the notice has been received by the grandson and that
the grandmother and the grandson are living jointly.
4. Learned counsel for the State Mr. J.N. Thakur is
present and has assisted the Court in the disposal of this case. The
allegation in the F.I.R. is that the informant is aged about 50 years
and that on 03.11.2019 at 06:30 P.M., when she had gone to
Fatehpur Shiv Mandir after performing the Chhath Puja, the
petitioner Sanjeet Sharma started outraging the modesty of her
daughter. There were others also who assaulted her. She stated that
on an earlier occasion also, Sanjeet Sharma had attempted to rape
her daughter. On the basis of the said complaint, Naubatpur P.S.
Case No. 702 of 2019 dated 03.11.2019 was registered under
Sections 504, 506, 354(b) and 354(c) of the Indian Penal Code.
After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet, the case
was committed to the court of Sessions, and the matter is running
for evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the
Court that three witnesses have already been examined.
Nonetheless, the Court retains its jurisdiction under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It has been held in
Anand Kumar Mohatta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
(2019) 11 SCC 706 that the advanced stage of a case does not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55205 of 2021 dt.22-06-2026
3/5
operate as a bar to the exercise of quashing jurisdiction. Even
where witnesses have been examined, if the Court is of the opinion
that the continuation of the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the
process of the Court, it is empowered to quash the proceedings.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this
Court through the judgment dated 23.05.2007 in Sessions Trial No.
409 of 2007 arising out of Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 104 of 2006,
which had been lodged by the elder daughter of the present
informant for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code against the present petitioner. The case resulted in the
acquittal of the petitioner as the victim, her mother, her father, and
the witnesses turned hostile. Apart from the above, the informant
had also filed a case being Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 123 of 1999
for offences under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and other
provisions against certain persons of the neighbouring village. All
the accused were acquitted vide Annexure-P/3, vide order dated
15.07.2002 passed in Trial No. 1371 of 2002. In that case, only the
informant appeared as a witness and, finding apparent
contradictions in her statement and the other materials on record,
the trial court acquitted the accused.
7. On the strength of the aforesaid material, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant is a habitual
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55205 of 2021 dt.22-06-2026
4/5
litigant who has a history of lodging cases that have not resulted in
conviction and, in the case directly against the petitioner, her own
family members gave up their version and turned hostile. The
present case appears to be squarely covered by the grounds
enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and Others
reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 with regard to mala fide
litigation.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed quashing of the order of cognizance dated
07.01.2020.
9. Moreover, the quashing jurisdiction of this Court
appears to have been further expanded by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Salib vs. State of U.P. reported in (2023) 20 SCC 194,
where in paragraph 26 it has been held that even when the F.I.R.
appears to make out a prima facie case, the Court is empowered to
read between the lines and analyze the attending circumstances in
order to arrive at the conclusion that the prosecution is mala fide or
not maintainable.
10. The materials on record clearly show a case of
mala fide prosecution. Taking into consideration the ratio of
Bhajan Lal and Md. Salib, the order of cognizance dated
07.01.2020 passed in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55205 of 2021 dt.22-06-2026
5/5
702 of 2019 by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed so far as the petitioner
is concerned.
11. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 24.06.2026
Transmission Date 24.06.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.