Patna High Court
Ankit Kumar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the FIR was a malicious, vexatious complaint filed to harass the appellants and thus constituted an abuse of the process of law.
Summary
The appellants, residents of Jaipur, were charged under several IPC sections and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged caste‑based abuse, assault and an attempt to outrage modesty against a caretaker, Kalawati Devi, in Saran, Bihar. The appellants contended that the FIR was filed as a retaliatory measure after the caretaker’s husband’s wife (appellant No.4) lodged a dowry‑related complaint against her husband in Jaipur, and that the accused were physically absent from the alleged scene, as proven by CCTV and biometric evidence. The High Court examined whether the complaint was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Section 482 of the CrPC, applying the Supreme Court’s four‑step test for quashing proceedings. It found the FIR to be a malicious counter‑complaint, lacking credible evidence, and that proceeding with the trial would constitute an abuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the court quashed the Special Judge’s order taking cognizance and dismissed the prosecution.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process warranting quashal under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the alleged caste‑based abuse and assault constitute offences under Sections 3(r), 3(s), 3(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the appellants' alibi, supported by CCTV and biometric evidence, defeats the material basis of the charges.
- Whether the jurisdiction of the Special Court is proper given the appellants' residence in Rajasthan.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354, 498A, 504, 506
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(va), 3(r), 3(s), 3(w)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- abuse of process
- quashing of FIR
- Section 482 CrPC
- false complaint
- caste harassment
- jurisdiction
- alibi evidence
- vexatious litigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1011 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2020 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran
======================================================
1. Ankit Kumar Sharma S/o- Shailendra Kumar Sharma @ Shailendra Village-
Baikunthpur Ps- Rajapakar Dist- Vaishali P/A- P.No-33, Lalpura Colony
Vanasthali Marg Near Sindhi Camp Buz Stand Jaipur Rajasthan
2. Shailendra Kumar Sharma @ Shailendra S/o- Late Shrikant Sharma Village-
Baikunthpur Ps- Rajapakar Dist- Vaishali P/A- P.No-33, Lalpura Colony
Vanasthali Marg Near Sindhi Camp Buz Stand Jaipur Rajasthan
3. Abhinesh Kumar Sharma @ Abhinash Kumar Sharma @ Abhinash @
Abhinesh @ Abhishek Sharma @ Tinku Shailendra Kumar Sharma @
Shailendra Village- Baikunthpur Ps- Rajapakar Dist- Vaishali P/A- P.No-33,
Lalpura Colony Vanasthali Marg Near Sindhi Camp Buz Stand Jaipur
Rajasthan
4. Shalini Kumar Sharma @ Shalini W/o- Shailendra Kumar Sharma @
Shailendra Village- Baikunthpur Ps- Rajapakar Dist- Vaishali P/A- P.No-33,
Lalpura Colony Vanasthali Marg Near Sindhi Camp Buz Stand Jaipur
Rajasthan
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Kalawati Devi W/o- Shivji Manjhi Village- Mahmadpur Ps- Garkha Dist-
Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv.
: Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, Adv.
: Mr. Sushant Srivastava, Adv.
: Mrs. Sonali Priya, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, App.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Adv.
: Mr. Baban Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
C.A.V.
Date : 12 -05-2026
1. The present quashing application has been filed for
setting aside the order dated 27.09.2023 passed in SC/ST Trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
2/16
Case No. 162 of 2023 arising out of Garkha P.S. Case No. 298
of 2020, whereby the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saran
at Chapra, has taken cognizance of the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
the I.P.C. and Sections 3 (r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act
against the appellants.
2. The prosecution case, as per the FIR lodged by the
informant, namely Kalawati Devi, is that she resides in the
house of late Ramji Singh and she was a caretaker of his
farmland and house. In June 2019, Manish Kumar, son of late
Ramji Singh, was married with Shalini Sharma/appellant no. 4.
After some time, Ankit Sharma and Abhinesh Sharma appellant
nos. 1 and 3, who are brothers of Shalini Sharma/appellant no.
4, started visiting the house of late Ramji Singh and abused her,
addressing her with her caste name and threatened to throw her
belongings out of the house.
3. It has further been alleged that on 29.06.2020,
appellants, along with two unknown persons, arrived in a car
from their village Baikuntpur, Vaishali. Upon arrival, Shailendra
Sharma and Abhinesh Sharma started hurling caste-based
abuses and threatened the informant to vacate the house. The
informant requested for some time to make alternative
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
3/16
arrangements and upon hearing this, appellant nos. 1 to 3
dragged the informant by her hair out on to the road, assaulted
her and tore her saree in order to outrage her modesty. When the
informant's husband intervened to save her, he was also
assaulted by the appellants. The local people gathered at the spot
after hearing noise. In the meanwhile, appellant no. 1 took out
pistol, pointed it at the informant’s forehead and threatened her
to vacate the house failing which she would face dire
consequences.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written report, FIR was
lodged and after investigation, final form/charge sheet was
submitted on 18.10.2022 against the appellants under Sections
341, 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and
Sections 3(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Thereafter,
cognizance was taken by the learned Special Court on
27.09.2023 under the aforesaid Sections.
5. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel for the
appellants, argued that the present case has been lodged in abuse
of the process of criminal law inasmuch as the appellant no. 4 is
wife of the informant's landlord, namely Manish Kumar, and the
marriage was solemnized between them on 11.06.2019. After
some time, there was marriage dispute between the husband and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
4/16
wife for which appellant no. 4, wife of Manish Kumar, filed a
police complaint in Jaipur bearing Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of
2020 dated 20.01.2020 against her husband, namely Manish
Kumar, and his family members under Sections 498A, 406, 323
of the I.P.C., alleging therein torture, assault and harassment for
want of dowry.
6. It has further been argued that the appellants are
permanent residents of Jaipur, Rajasthan, and not of Vaishali.
The appellants for the last several decades have been living in
Jaipur, Rajasthan, and even on the alleged date of occurrence,
they were in Jaipur, Rajasthan. The address given in the FIR is
merely the address of ancestral village of the appellants. The
appellants resides and works at Rajasthan and are de-facto
residents of Jaipur. The appellant no. 1/Ankit Sharma has
studied from the childhood in a school at Jaipur and has passed
his 8th Board Pattern Examination 2006 from Jaipur. Thereafter,
he passed his matriculation examination from the Board of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan, in the year 2008, Senior
Secondary Examination in 2010 was also from Rajasthan.
Thereafter, he was enrolled in the University of Rajasthan and
passed Part III Examination in the year 2016. He was granted
provisional certificate by the University of Rajasthan on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
5/16
27.05.2016. The other documents such as Aadhaar enrollment
was done on 18.06.2011 by the appellant no. 1, clearly shows
that his address at that point of time was in Jaipur, Rajasthan.
His domicile certificate, bank account passbook and insurance
certificates, driving license, Aadhaar card including ITR bears
the permanent address of Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. The appellant No. 1 was in Jaipur on the alleged date of
occurrence, which is evident from his biometric sheet attached
in the memo of appeal and it is clearly evident from the CCTV
footage, provided by the employer, that he was present in his
office throughout the alleged date of occurrence/next day. The
screenshot from the CCTV footage has been attached as
Annexure P/12 series.
8. Similarly, the appellant no. 2, i.e., father of appellant
no. 1, also resides at Jaipur and the relevant documents goes to
show that the entire family has been living in Jaipur from the
last several decades. The documents are the Family Ration Card
issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Form 1-B of
Employees' State Insurance (General) Registration Regulation,
1950, and all other important and relevant documents bears the
address of Jaipur, Rajasthan. The appellant no. 3, who is the
younger brother of appellant no. 1, whose document including
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
6/16
the educational certificate and other relevant documents, also
goes to show that he is permanent resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan
and not of Vaishali, Bihar. The appellant no. 4, who is the sister
of appellant nos. 1 and 3, and her documents including
educational certificates also goes to show that she was
permanent resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan and not of Vaishali,
Bihar, before her marriage with Manish Kumar, the landlord of
respondent no. 2, on whose behest the respondent no. 2 has
stoop very low that she resorted to making false allegations
against the entire family of appellants owing to matrimonial
dispute between husband and wife.
9. It has next been submitted that the present case has
been lodged with oblique motive against the appellants, which
appears to be on the pressure and/or at the behest of her landlord
i.e. Manish Kumar and her mother, namely Ms. Meera and in
whose house the respondent no. 2 resides as caretaker. The FIR
has been lodged in order to wreck vengeance against appellant
no. 4 and her family members for instituting case under Section
498A of the I.P.C. against them in order to use this case as a
pressure tactics and a counterblast to coerce and blackmail them
into withdrawing the case lodged at Jaipur.
10. Learned counsel lastly submits that appellant no. 2 is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
7/16
suffering from paralysis and is unable to move as it is evident
from the order sheet at the time of surrender. He relies upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali & Ors.
Vs. State of UP & Ors. (2023) 15 SCC 488, Salib Alias Shalu
alias Salim Vs. State of UP & Ors. reported in (2023) 20 SCC
194, Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of UP & Anr.,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947, Inder Mohan
Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal, reported in (2007)
12 SCC 1, State Of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335.
11. Per contra, Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 submits that the
informant is a caretaker and she has no connection with the case
registered under Section 498A of the I.P.C. by appellant no. 4 at
Jaipur. The appellants have humiliated and molested as well as
abused by her caste name in the public place and in public view.
She is not aware of the dispute between the appellants and the
family members of the Late Ramji Singh.
12. He further submits that during the course of
investigation, the informant and witnesses have fully supported
the case and there is sufficient materials against the appellants
for further proceedings. There is specific allegation against the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
8/16
appellants that they called the informant by her caste name,
assaulted her and also tried to outrage her modesty. The learned
Special Court has rightly taken cognizance under the provisions
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with the
relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. He relies upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Babbu Rathore & Anr., reported in (2020) 2 SCC
577, Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors., reported in
(2015) 3 SCC 424.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the materials available on record, including the
impugned order.
14. It is not disputed that marriage was solemnized in the
year 2019 between the appellant no. 4 and Manish Kumar, i.e.
landlord of respondent no. 2. Further, it is evident from the
record that appellant no. 4 had lodged the police complaint in
Jaipur bearing Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2020 on 20.01.2020
against her husband and in-laws prior to lodging of the present
FIR. From perusal of the FIR, it does not appear that the alleged
abuse using the caste name was made in full public view with
the intention to denigrate the prestige of the informant. Merely
stating the caste name or using simple abusive language,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
9/16
especially if not in full public view, does not automatically
constitute an offense under Section 3(r) and (s) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
15. In the judgment of Salib alias Shalu alias Salim
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 26 has
observed that whenever an accused comes before the court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR
or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground
that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then
in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the
FIR with care and a little more closely. It is so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an
ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc. then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with
all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that
the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they
disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to
look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
10/16
purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous
or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging from the record
of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with
due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself
only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account
the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of
the case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation.
16. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd.
Wajid & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2023) 20
SCC 219, has also held that:
"It will not be just enough for the Court to
look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence
are disclosed or not. In frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a
duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of
the case over and above the averments and,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
11/16
if need be, with due care and circumspection
try to read in between the lines. The Court
while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of
the Constitution need not restrict itself only
to the stage of a case but is empowered to
take into account the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation/registration of the
case as well as the materials collected in the
course of investigation.”
17. From perusal of the documents brought on record by
way of supplementary affidavit, which are the screenshots of
CCTV footage and certificate issued by the employer with
biometric attendance, it is evident that the appellant no. 1 was at
Jaipur on the alleged date of occurrence. The documents which
are the part of electronic evidence can be safely placed under the
category of unimpeachable documents. The appellant no. 2 is
father of appellant no. 4 and is suffering from paralysis, which is
also apparent from the order of surrender dated 05.01.2022.
Appellant no. 3, who is brother of appellant no. 4, has also
produced various documents showing the entire family are the
residents of Jaipur.
18. Upon perusal of charge sheet, it appears that the
charge sheet is cryptic and perfunctory, as it merely reproduces
the penal sections and states in conclusory terms that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
12/16
offences are found true against the appellants and without
setting forth any foundational facts or evidence. The
investigation has been conducted in a routine and mechanical
manner. Furthermore, the date of occurrence as mentioned in the
FIR is 03.07.2020 and at that time there was Nationwide
lockdown imposed in view of the Covid-19 pandemic and there
was complete travel restrictions, which makes the allegation
more dubious, as it is beyond imagination that the appellants
will travel from Jaipur to the alleged place of occurrence at
Saran, Bihar, which is more than 1000 kilometers in distance.
19. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to two decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Nitin Ahluwalia
vs. State of Punjab and Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 1128,
wherein it has been held that if the complaint is seen in
isolation, then the approach of the learned Single Judge appears
entirely to be in consonance with the established position of
law-allegations have been made and so they have to be
investigated. In certain cases, though it is not as straight cut as
that, while it is true that elaborate defenses and evidence
brought on record is not to be considered at this stage, it is
equally true that a mechanical approach cannot be
countenanced. What renders a judicial mind distinct is its
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
13/16
application to the given facts in accordance with law. Therefore,
the court ought to have appreciated, at least to some extent, the
background in which the respondent filed the subject FIR.
20. The analytical framework laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of UP
(2025) SCC Online SC 1947, becomes highly relevant. The
court delineated four steps to determine the veracity of a prayer
for quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which are as
follows:-
Step 1. Whether the material relied upon by the accused
is sound, reasonable and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of
sterling and impeccable quality?
Step 2. Whether the material relied upon by the accused
would rule out the assertions contained in the charges leveled
against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and
overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e.,
the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to
dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as
false?
Step 3. Whether the material relied upon by the accused
has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant, and/or the
material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
14/16
prosecution/complainant?
Step 4. Whether proceedings with the trial would result in
an abuse of process of the court and would not serve the ends of
justice?
21. If the answer to all the steps is in affirmative, judicial
conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such
criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
22. In the present matter, it appears that respondent no. 2
has been set up by the husband and mother-in-law of appellant
no. 4 to lodge the present FIR in order to take revenge for
lodging FIR at Jaipur by appellant no. 4 against her husband and
his family members. The informant has admitted in the FIR that
she is domestic help/caretaker of the house of Late father of the
husband of appellant no. 4.
23. The motive for instituting the FIR against the
appellants appears to be at the behest of landlords/masters of the
respondent no. 2, i.e., Manish Kumar and Meera Devi, in whose
house the respondent no. 2 resides and work for profit. If
attending circumstances, emerging from the record of the case,
is taken into account and the FIR is read with due care and
circumspection, this Court comes to the conclusion that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
15/16
criminal prosecution has been lodged in order to wreck
vengeance on appellant no. 4 and her entire family for
instituting a case under Section 498A of the I.P.C against the
masters/landlord of respondent no. 2, including the husband of
appellant no. 4. The FIR is a counterblast and tool to harass the
appellants by way of launching false and malicious prosecution.
24. It is well settled principle that criminal prosecution
must not be permitted as an instrument of harassment and
private vendetta. The High Court is entitled to quash a
proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the
proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the
Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding
ought to be quashed.
25. The case relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for
the respondent no. 2 is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
26. The learned Special Court has taken cognizance
without appreciating the attending circumstances, and in
mechanical manner.
27. Taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion and
the attending circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view
that a vexatious, frivolous and malicious complaint has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1011 of 2024 dt.12-05-2026
16/16
instituted against the appellants with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance which is a counterblast to the FIR lodged
by the wife/appellant no. 4 against her husband at Jaipur. The
FIR was lodged by the domestic help/caretaker of the husband
of appellant no. 4 and the same is in abuse of the process of
Court to harass the appellants and the learned Special Court has
taken cognizance without due application of judicial mind.
Allowing the prosecution to continue will result in miscarriage
of justice to the appellants.
28. In the result, the order taking cognizance dated
27.09.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saran
at Chapra and the entire prosecution arising out of Garhka P.S.
Case No. 298 of 2020 against the appellants is hereby quashed.
29. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed with no
order as to costs.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
HarshPandey/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 16.03.2026
Uploading Date 12.05.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.