Patna High Court

Mohit AgrwalversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 1 May 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The trial court's order directing summons against the petitioner was unsustainable as it lacked specific allegation and proper application of judicial mind, warranting quash of the proceeding.

Summary

The petitioner sought quashing of a trial court order that directed summons against him in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 323, 504 and 384 IPC relating to alleged illegal sale of Mahasabha land and an assault. The trial court had taken cognizance based on a prima facie case without specific allegations against the petitioner. The High Court examined whether the order complied with the requirement of applying judicial mind and specific allegation, and whether inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC could be invoked. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that mere inclusion of a name in the accused list without concrete allegation does not satisfy the threshold for summoning. Consequently, the order was set aside, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner was quashed, and the petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court's order directing issuance of summons against the petitioner, in the absence of specific allegation, is legally valid.
Whether the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC can be exercised to quash the proceeding.
Whether the complaint discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner under Sections 323, 504 and 384 IPC.
Whether the procedural requirements of Section 202 CrPC were complied with before summoning the accused.

Legislation cited

Criminal Procedure Code — s. 200, 202, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 384, 504

Subjects

quash order
summons
private complaint
prima facie case
Section 482 inherent jurisdiction
specific allegation
abuse of process

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22258 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1617 Year-2008 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Mohit Agrwal, son of Sri Anand Agrwal, resident of M/S Tulshi Enterprises
Pvt. Ltd, D 53/97, A-7, Parwatipur Colony, P.S.- Luxa, Guru Bagh, Varanashi
UP.
.. ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sri B.N. Thakur, Chairman of Karpuri Thakur Vichar Manch Asmarak Trust
Patna, Daroga Rai Path, P.S.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashraf Ansariapp, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
6 01-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing

the order dated 12.08.2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned

order’) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in Complaint Case No.

1617(C) of 2008 whereby cognizance was taken against the

accused persons including petitioner for the offences punishable

under Sections 323, 504 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

and summons were directed to be issued against them.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

complainant (O.P. No. 2), describing himself as the Chairman of

Karpuri Thakur Vichar Asmark Nayas, instituted Complaint

Case No. 1617(C) of 2008 alleging that Akhil Bhartiye Nai
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22258 of 2016(6) dt.01-05-2026
2/10

Brahman Mahasabha is a society registered under the Society

Registration Act and it had acquired certain land by a registered

deed of gift dated 24.11.1931 for the purpose of construction of

Mahasabha Building, Nai Brahman Gurukul, Hostel and

Updesak School etc., and such land was not liable to be sold. It

is alleged that the accused persons, with dishonest intention,

sold the said land and misappropriated the property of the

Mahasabha. It is further alleged that in order to grab the said

property, a forged Sammelan of the Mahasabha was held at

Katihar on 21.06.2005 under the president ship of accused no. 1,

Dr. Shyam Nath Sharma, which was conducted by accused no.

2, namely, Sri Prem Chand Sharma and organized by accused

no. 4, namely, Sardar Suresh, wherein forged proceedings were

prepared by impersonating Rajendra Sharma and Ramyad

Bahadurpuri and by falsely showing Pandit Darshan Prasad as

dead. The O.P. No. 2 further alleged that he was authorized in a

meeting dated 25.05.2008 to take legal action in the matter. It is

also alleged that on 01.06.2008 accused no. 3, namely Namber

Prasad, along with other accused persons, came to the office of

the complainant, abused him, assaulted him by fists and slaps,

and tore official papers. On the basis of the said allegations, O.P.

No. 2 has filed a complaint case before learned Trial Court on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22258 of 2016(6) dt.01-05-2026
3/10

10.06.2008.

4. Learned Trial Court examined the complainant and

the witnesses on oath and also directed the police to submit

enquiry report, on the basis of the same and other available

documents, took cognizance of the offence punishable under

Sections 323, 504 and 384 of I.P.C against the accused persons

including the petitioner and directed to issue summons against

them vide the impugned order dated 12.08.2009. Aggrieved

thereby, petitioner has preferred this present application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

impugned order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and fit to be quashed.

Learned counsel of petitioner further submits that except the

name of the petitioner appearing at serial no. 5 in the array of

accused persons, there is absolutely no allegation in the body of

the complaint petition against him. No specific overt act,

participation, or role has been attributed to the petitioner either

in the complaint petition or in deposition of any enquiry

witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation

relating to sale and misappropriation of the property of Akhil

Bhartiye Nai Brahman Mahasabha is purely civil in nature and

has been given a criminal colour. So far as the allegation of

abuse and assault, it is specifically against one Nabmer Prasad
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22258 of 2016(6) dt.01-05-2026
4/10

and, allegation of extortion is alleged against none. Hence, the

essential ingredients of the said offence are completely absent.

6. Learned counsel of petitioner further submits that

the learned Trial Court initially conducted inquiry under Section

202 Cr.P.C. himself and thereafter directed police investigation

vide order dated 13.01.2009, but without receiving any police

report, again proceeded to hear the matter afresh on the basis of

earlier inquiry materials, which is a procedure unknown to law

and contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is

a mechanical order passed without proper application of judicial

mind. The learned Trial Court merely observed that a prima

facie case is made out without discussing any material against

the petitioner or recording satisfaction as to how the ingredients

of the alleged offences are attracted against him. It is further

submitted that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a

serious matter and cannot be done in a routine and casual

manner. It is thus submitted that continuation of the criminal

proceeding against the petitioner, in absence of any specific

allegation and supporting material, would amount to abuse of

the process of the Court and, therefore, the impugned order, so

far as it relates to the present petitioner, deserves to be quashed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22258 of 2016(6) dt.01-05-2026
5/10

7. Despite sufficient opportunity given to O.P. No. 2,

no one is present on his behalf.

8. Learned A.P.P. submits that the learned Trial Court,

after considering materials on record, found prima facie case

and accordingly took cognizance and directed issuance of

summons against accused persons including petitioner herein. It

is submitted that at the stage of cognizance, detailed

appreciation of evidence is not required and, therefore, the

impugned order requires no interference.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as

well as the learned A.P.P. for the State and upon perusal of the

materials available on record, it appears that the present case

arises out of Complaint Case No. 1617(C) of 2008 instituted by

the O.P. No. 2, claiming himself to be the Chairman of Karpuri

Thakur Vichar Asmark Nayas, alleging that the accused persons

had illegally sold and misappropriated the land and property of

Akhil Bhartiye Nai Brahman Mahasabha, which had been

acquired through a registered deed of gift for institutional

purposes. It is further alleged that a forged Sammelan was held

on 21.06.2005 and forged proceedings were prepared to

facilitate such illegal act. O.P. No. 2 also alleged that on

01.06.2008 accused no. 3, namely Namber Prasad, along with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22258 of 2016(6) dt.01-05-2026
6/10

others, came to his office, abused and assaulted him, and tore

official papers. The learned Trial Court found prima facie case

under Sections 323, 504 and 384 I.P.C. and directed issuance of

summons against the accused persons including the present

petitioner vide Impugned Order. The main lis before this court is

as to “whether Impugned Order of directing issuance of

summons against petitioner requires interference of this court

while exercising inherent jurisdiction.”

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravindranatha

Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. & Ors.

reported in (2022) 15 SCC 430 has explained implication of

absence of specific allegation against an accused in a private

complaint on issuance of summons and held as under:

“8.2. As observed by this Court in Pepsi
Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate
[Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC
(Cri) 1400] and even thereafter in a catena
of decisions, summoning of an accused in a
criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal
law cannot be set into motion as a matter of
course. In para 28 in Pepsi Foods Ltd.
[Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC
(Cri) 1400] , it is observed and held as
under : (SCC p. 760)
“28. Summoning of an accused in a
criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal
law cannot be set into motion as a matter of
course. It is not that the complainant has to
bring only two witnesses to support his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22258 of 2016(6) dt.01-05-2026
7/10

allegations in the complaint to have the
criminal law set into motion. The order of
the Magistrate summoning the accused must
reflect that he has applied his mind to the
facts of the case and the law applicable
thereto. He has to examine the nature of
allegations made in the complaint and the
evidence both oral and documentary in
support thereof and would that be sufficient
for the complainant to succeed in bringing
charge home to the accused. It is not that the
Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of
recording of preliminary evidence before
summoning of the accused. The Magistrate
has to carefully scrutinise the evidence
brought on record and may even himself put
questions to the complainant and his
witnesses to elicit answers to find out the
truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise
and then examine if any offence is prima
facie committed by all or any of the
accused.”

8.3. As held by this Court in India Infoline
Ltd. [GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v.
India Infoline Ltd., (2013) 4 SCC 505 :
(2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 414] , in the order
issuing summons, the learned Magistrate
has to record his satisfaction about a prima
facie case against the accused who are
Managing Director, the Company Secretary
and the Directors of the Company and the
role played by them in their respective
capacities which is sine qua non for
initiating criminal proceedings against them.
Looking to the averments and the allegations
in the complaint, there are no specific
allegations and/or averments with respect to
role played by them in their capacity as
Chairman, Managing Director, Executive
Director, Deputy General Manager and
Planner & Executor. Merely because they
are Chairman, Managing Director/Executive
Director and/or Deputy General Manager
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22258 of 2016(6) dt.01-05-2026
8/10

and/or Planner/Supervisor of A-1 and A-6,
without any specific role attributed and the
role played by them in their capacity, they
cannot be arrayed as an accused, more
particularly they cannot be held vicariously
liable for the offences committed by A-1 and
A-6.”

11. In the present case, it appears from the complaint

petition that the name of the present petitioner finds place only

in the array of accused persons at serial no. 5, but except such

mention, no specific allegation has been made against him in the

body of the complaint petition. Neither any overt act nor any

specific role has been attributed to the petitioner with regard to

the alleged illegal sale of the Mahasabha land, alleged

misappropriation of its property, or the alleged occurrence of

assault and abuse dated 01.06.2008. It further appears from the

solemn affirmation of the O.P. No. 2 recorded under Section 200

Cr.P.C. that no specific statement has been made therein against

the present petitioner.

12. It is well settled that summoning of an accused in

a criminal case is a serious matter and the Trial Court is

required to apply judicial mind to the materials available on

record before issuing process. The Trial Court must be satisfied

that sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused

and such satisfaction must be reflected from the order itself.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22258 of 2016(6) dt.01-05-2026
9/10

Mere reproduction of sections and a bald observation that a

prima facie case is made out, without discussing the role of the

accused or the materials supporting such conclusion, is not

sufficient.

13. In the present case, the impugned order merely

records that prima facie case under Sections 323, 504 and 384

I.P.C. is made out against the accused persons including

petitioner herein and summons were directed to be issued. The

Impugner Order does not disclose any material showing

involvement of the present petitioner nor does it indicate proper

application of judicial mind by the learned Trial Court.

14. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court

finds that the present case squarely falls within the principles

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana

and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1)

SCC 335 and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947,

wherein categories of cases have been illustratively enumerated

where exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C. would be justified. In particular, the present case falls

within the category where the allegations made in the complaint,

even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22258 of 2016(6) dt.01-05-2026
10/10

prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioner

Accordingly, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the

petitioner, in absence of any specific allegation and supporting

material, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

15. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made

hereinabove, this Court finds that the impugned order dated

12.08.2009 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with

Complaint Case No.- 1617 (C) of 2008 qua the petitioner, cannot

be sustained in the eyes of law and are hereby set aside.

16. Resultantly, the entire criminal proceeding arising

out of the aforesaid case, so far as it relates to the present

petitioner, stands quashed.

17. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application,

accordingly, stands allowed.

18. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court

concerned forthwith for information and necessary action.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.