NEETU KUMARI @ NITU KUMARIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13252 of 2023
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2015 Thana- KANKARBAG District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 NEETU KUMARI @ NITU KUMARI W/O GOPAL THAKUR Resident of
                 Village- Ratanpur, P.S.- Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga.

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 THE STATE OF BIHAR

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Ashok Kr. Choudhary, Sr. Adv.
                                                 Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Binod Kumar, APP

                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   31-01-2026                     Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior

                   counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, assisted by Mr.

                   Arvind Kumar and learned APP for the State.

                                 2. No one appears on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2

                   despite valid service of notice.

                                 3. The present application has been filed for quashing

                   of order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the learned Judicial

                   Magistrate-2nd Class, Patna in connection with Kankarbagh P.S.

                   Case No. 74 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the learned

                   Magistrate took cognizance under section 364A read with

                   section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and

                   others and further prayer is to set aside the order dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13252 of 2023(6) dt.31-01-2026
                                            2/6




          28.9.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-

          XVI, Patna in Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2021 against order

          dated 04.03.2020.

                       4. The short facts, based upon written information of

          the informant Moni Devi is that while she was along with her

          brother in the clinic of Dr. R.N. Singh on 01.02.2025 at around

          2:00 p.m., some persons came and forcefully took away her

          brother, namely Krishna Chaudhary, on a vehicle and such

          information was given to the police and F.I.R No. 74 of 2015

          dated 01.02.2015 was registered under sections 363 and 365 of

          the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) against

          unknown persons.

                       5. After investigation, the police submitted charge

          sheet in the case against the accused persons, including the

          present petitioner, based upon which the learned Magistrate took

          cognizance against the present petitioner and other accused

          persons for the offence punishable under section 364A read with

          section 34 of the I.P.C. on 04.03.2020.

                       6. Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for

          the petitioner submits that it would be evident from a bare

          perusal of the F.I.R. itself that it was lodged against unknown

          persons and the name of this petitioner along with others has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13252 of 2023(6) dt.31-01-2026
                                            3/6




          transpired during course of investigation where the statement of

          the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which he

          has disclosed general and omnibus allegation against the

          accused persons. However, the said statement of the victim does

          not make any mention with regard to the involvement of the

          present petitioner in the aforesaid offence. It has been submitted

          that the petitioner has been made an accused in this case only by

          virtue of the fact that she happened to be the wife of accused

          Gopal Thakur and the mobile phone with which certain phone

          calls were made belonged to the present petitioner.

                       7. It has further been submitted that F.I.R. was lodged

          with malicious intention and this petitioner and others having

          been made accused is attended with mala fide, is quite evident

          from the fact that there was a dispute with regard to the

          monetary transaction between the petitioner's husband and the

          victim and he had agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 28 lakhs on

          31.12.2015 and with regard to which, a panchayati took place

          and it is precisely on the next date i.e. on 31.12.2015, that the

          present F.I.R. was lodged with a view to harass the petitioner

          and her entire family members. He has further submitted that a

          money suit bearing Money Suit No.38 of 2015 was also filed by

          husband of the petitioner, Gopal Thakur, against the victim and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13252 of 2023(6) dt.31-01-2026
                                            4/6




          in the said proceedings also the victim deliberately did not

          appear and has taken recourse to filing the present false case

          against the petitioner and others. It has thus been argued that the

          present case is out and out false and malicious prosecution

          against the petitioner falling within the categories as enumerated

          in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal &

          Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.

                       8. The further submission made on behalf of learned

          senior counsel is to the effect that a bare perusal of the

          cognizance order would also indicate that it is a totally

          mechanical order passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate

          inasmuch as it is not indicative of any judicial application of

          mind, but for the fact that since the charge-sheet has been

          submitted, cognizance has been taken against all the persons

          named in column 11 of the said charge-sheet. Additionally, it

          has also been argued that the other accused persons being

          Murari Thakur, Gopal Thakur and Nitesh Kumar, against whom

          there appears some general and omnibus allegations in the

          statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, had

          also preferred an application for quashing the cognizance order

          and by well considered and reasoned order, the said application

          was allowed by a coordinate bench of this court by order dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13252 of 2023(6) dt.31-01-2026
                                            5/6




          15.07.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 17472 of 2023 and it has, thus,

          been submitted that the present case stands on a much better

          footing than co-accused persons.

                       9. I have perused the entire material available on

          record and after considering the submissions made by the

          learned Senior Counsel, this Court is of the view that not only

          the cognizance order passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate is a

          non-speaking order reflecting the non-application of judicial

          mind, it is also a fact that the materials available on record do

          not point out the involvement of the present petitioner in any

          manner. This Court also takes into consideration the fact that the

          present prosecution can be termed to be a malicious prosecution

          in view of the background of money suit pending between the

          parties and the present FIR being filed at a time when

          panchayati was going on and as such the allegations made

          against the petitioner do not have any legs to stand.

                       10. Considering the fact that the present case is

          squarely covered under the categories of quashing as laid down

          in the case of Ch. Bhajanlal (supra) and also considering that

          case of other co-accused persons have already been quashed by

          a reasoned order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court and

          finding the case of this petitioner to be on a much better footing,
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13252 of 2023(6) dt.31-01-2026
                                                        6/6




                      cognizance order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the learned

                      Judicial Magistrate-2nd Class, Patna in connection with

                      Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 74 of 2015 as also the impugned

                      order dated 28.9.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

                      Judge-XVI, Patna in Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2021 are

                      hereby quashed.

                                   10. Accordingly, the instant application stands

                      allowed.


                                                (Soni Shrivastava, J)

Harsh/-
U       T