Patna High Court
Ritu Devi and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The Court quashed the Magistrate's order and all criminal proceedings, holding that the complaint was filed with mala fide intent and proceeding would amount to an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of family members, filed an interlocutory application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash a Judicial Magistrate's order that had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 341, 379, 380, 354(A) and 34 of the IPC based on a complaint lodged by O.P. No.2. The petitioners contended that the complaint was filed with mala fide intent as retaliation to a 498A case filed by petitioner Ritu Devi against the same complainant, and that several accused were minors or otherwise unavailable at the alleged time of the incident. The State's Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded that the complaint was largely general, omnibus and filed after the 498A case, and no medical evidence supported the alleged assaults. The Court examined the annexures, including a police diary and a certificate confirming the presence of a petitioner police officer at his posting, and found the allegations implausible and the complaint abusive of process. Consequently, the Court held that proceeding against the petitioners would be an abuse of the judicial process and quashed the Magistrate's order and all ensuing criminal proceedings. The application was allowed, and the deceased petitioners' names were expunged from the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences can be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC.
- Whether the complaint filed by O.P. No.2 was mala fide and constituted an abuse of process.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354A, 379, 380, 498A
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash order
- abuse of process
- mala fide complaint
- criminal procedure
- IPC offences
- minor accused
- retaliatory complaint
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15020 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-648 Year-2015 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
Rohtas
======================================================
1. Ritu Devi, wife of Late Nagendra Rai, daughter of Siya Ram Rai,
2. Siya Ram Rai, son of Sri Basundha Rai,
3. Tetra Devi, wife of Siya ram Rai,
4. Gautam Rai @ Gautam Kumar Rai, son of Siya Ram Rai,
5. Priyanka Kumari, daughter of Siya Ram Rai,
6. Phuti Kumari @ Radha Kumari @ Phrutee Kumari, daughter of Siya Ram
Rai,
7. Sunil Rai @ Sunil Kumar Rai, son of Baduri Rai,
8. Rekha Devi, wife of Sunil Rai,
9. Sapna Kumari, daughter of Sunil Rai,
10. Ramesh Rai, son of Lal Bahadur Rai,
11. Nitu Devi, wife of Ramesh Rai, All are residents of Village- Gaudadh, P.S.-
Shahpur, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kaltor Rai, son of Late Hardiwar Rai, resident of Village- Gujroo, P.S.-
Kachhnwa, District- Rohtas.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Chaubey Jawahar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 02-02-2026 I.A. No. 01 of 2023
This interlocutory application has been filed to
expunge or delete the name of petitioner no. 3 namely, Tetra
Devi, petitioner no. 8 namely, Rekha Devi and petitioner no.9
namely, Sapna Kumari from the array of the petitioners on
account of their death.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15020 of 2017(4) dt.02-02-2026
2/5
2. The aforesaid prayer is allowed.
3. Let the names of petitioner nos. 3, 8 and 9 be
deleted/expunged from the array of the petitioners.
4. Now the instant petition will be heard and decided
in respect of the rest petitioners.
Cr. Misc. No. 15020 of 2017
5. The instant application has been filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), with a prayer to quash the order dated
20.09.2016 passed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Bikramganj, Rohtas, in Complaint Case No. 648 of 2015,
T.R. No. 2629 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the cognizance
of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 379, 380,
354(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and the
petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the said
offences.
6. Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, submits that O.P. No. 2, the father-in-law of
petitioner No. 1, has filed the complaint case in which impugned
order has been passed with a completely mala fide intention. He
submits that prior to the filing of the complaint, petitioner Ritu
Devi had instituted a Complaint Case No. 806C of 2015 before
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15020 of 2017(4) dt.02-02-2026
3/5
the Court of the C.J.M., Ara on 05.09.2015 against O.P. No. 2
and others for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code, wherein cognizance of the said offence was taken
by the Court of the S.D.J.M., Ara. Thereafter, O.P. No. 2 filed
the present complaint pursuant to which the impugned order has
been passed. It is further submitted that O.P. No. 2 has
implicated all the maternal family members of petitioner Ritu
Devi as accused, despite the fact that petitioners Phuti Kumari
@ Radha Kumari and Sapna Kumari (now deceased) were
minors at the relevant time, rendering the alleged occurrence
wholly unbelievable. It is also submitted that petitioner no.2
Siya Ram Rai, who was a police officer at the time of the
alleged occurrence, was posted at Laukahi Police Station,
Madhubani, and was present there in discharge of his official
duties on the date of the alleged occurrence. In support thereof,
Annexure-4, being the daily diary of the said police station
reflecting the official activities of the petitioner, is on record,
and Annexure-4A is the certificate issued by the then S.H.O. of
Laukahi Police Station, certifying the presence of the petitioner
and his family members within the premises of the police
station, where his official quarter was situated at the relevant
time. Lastly, it is submitted that all the allegations levelled in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15020 of 2017(4) dt.02-02-2026
4/5
complaint by O.P. No. 2 are wholly absurd and inherently
improbable, and that most of the allegations are general and
omnibus in nature, having been made by way of retaliation to
the case filed by petitioner Ritu Devi under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code against her in-laws.
7. No one is present on behalf of O.P. No.2.
8. Though Mr. Chaubey Jawahar, learned APP
appearing for the State, has defended the impugned order, he
fairly accepts that O.P. No. 2 filed the complaint after the
lodging of the case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code by petitioner Ritu Devi against the said O.P. No. 2 and
others, and also accepts that in the entire complaint most of the
allegations are general and omnibus in nature.
9. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking
into account the averments made in the present application,
particularly the annexures filed by the petitioners, this Court is
of the view that O.P. No. 2 filed his complaint with mala fide
intention and in retaliation to a case lodged by petitioner Ritu
Devi against O.P. No. 2 under Section 498A of the IPC, prior to
the filing of the present complaint. The prosecution story
appears wholly absurd, as some of the petitioners were minors.
Further, in the entire complaint, O.P. No. 2 has failed to disclose
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15020 of 2017(4) dt.02-02-2026
5/5
any specific role of most of the petitioners, and no medical
evidence has been produced in support of the alleged physical
assault. In my opinion, subjecting the petitioners to trial for the
alleged offences, of which cognizance has been taken, would
amount to a complete abuse of the process of the Court and
would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the impugned
order, which was passed mechanically by the concerned
Magistrate taking cognizance of the alleged offences, along with
all criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners
pursuant to the said order, are hereby quashed, and the instant
petition stands allowed.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/-
U T
Checking your session…