Patna High Court
Krishna Mani DeviversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The High Court quashed the order taking cognizance of the offences as it amounted to an abuse of the process of the court.
Summary
Krishna Mani Devi filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the cognizance order dated 12‑04‑2016 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, which had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC arising from a disputed land transaction. The petitioner alleged that the complaint filed by Dilip Kumar Keshri (OP‑2) was malicious, vague about the land details and the payment of Rs 9,60,000, and that no documentary evidence was produced despite promises to do so. The petitioner also highlighted that an FIR had earlier been lodged by her against OP‑2’s brother under the Arms Act and other IPC sections, suggesting the complaint was a retaliatory tactic. The respondent argued that sufficient material, including ocular evidence, existed to support the charges. After hearing both sides, the High Court held that the complaint was baseless and an abuse of process, and consequently quashed the cognizance order, allowing the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is maintainable in view of the alleged lack of evidence and vagueness.
- Whether the order taking cognizance of the offences constitutes an abuse of the court process.
- Whether Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash the cognizance order in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- malicious complaint
- abuse of process
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash cognizance order
- civil land dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25042 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1307 Year-2014 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE
District- Rohtas
======================================================
Krishna Mani Devi Wife of Late Deena Nath Pandey, R/o Mohalla- Chhawni
More, Ward No.- 13, N.H. 30, Dinara Road, Kochas, P.S.- Kochas, District-
Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Dilip Kumar Keshri, S/o Shri Chote Lal Keshri, At+ P.O.+ Village- Kochas,
P.S.- Kochas, District- Rohtas.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravindra Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 02-02-2026 The instant petition has been filed under section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) against
the order dated 12.04.2016 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram in Complaint Case No. 1307
of 2014 whereby cognizance of the offences punishable under
sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’)
has been taken and the petitioner has been summoned for the
said offences. By way of this application, the petitioner has
prayed for quashing of the cognizance order.
2. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that as per the prosecution story, the brother
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25042 of 2017(6) dt.02-02-2026
2/4
of the complainant and petitioner entered into a civil transaction
for transfer of land. It was agreed that son of the petitioner
would transfer a particular piece of land after receiving the
consideration money but in this regard, the complainant (O. P.
No.2) did not reveal the details of the said land and as per the
allegation, Rs. 9,60,000/- was paid by different transactions but
also in this regard, no sufficient evidence was given during the
course of enquiry. Regarding the payment of Rs. 9,60,000/-, the
averments made in the complaint petition as well as the
statements of the enquiry witnesses including the complainant
himself are completely vague. In the entire complaint petition as
well as in the statements of the enquiry witnesses, the details of
the land which was agreed to be transferred is completely
remained vague. In fact before filing of the complaint petition
on 23.11.2014 an FIR was lodged by the petitioner against the
brother of the O.P. No.2 for the offences punishable under
different sections of the Arms Act and under sections 452, 307
and 308 of the IPC and in the said occurrence related to that
matter, firearm was used while committing attempt to murder
which was recovered by the prosecution party after the accused
fled away and the same was produced before the police and
regarding that, seizure memo was also prepared of which copy
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25042 of 2017(6) dt.02-02-2026
3/4
has been filed and for creating pressure upon the petitioner, the
O.P. No.2 has filed the complaint with malafide intention. It is
lastly submitted that regarding the payment of alleged amount
of Rs. 9,60,000/-, the complainant stated before the trial court
when question was asked that he would produce documentary
proof with regard to the said payment but even in further
proceeding of enquiry, no attempt was made by the O.P. No.2
for producing the said documentary evidence.
3. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has vehemently
opposed this application and submits that there is sufficient
material to show the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged
offences of which cognizance has been taken and so far as the
proof of the payment of the alleged amount of Rs. 9,60,000/- is
concerned, in this regard, sufficient ocular evidence was given
before the trial court for proving the alleged transactions and
during the course of trial, sufficient documentary proof would
be produced.
4. After having heard both the sides and taking into
account the aforesaid submissions, this court finds that the
prosecution initiated against the petitioner by way of complaint
filed by the O.P. No.2 is completely malacious and the said
complaint was filed only after lodging the FIR by the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25042 of 2017(6) dt.02-02-2026
4/4
against the brother of the O.P. No.2 and with regard to the
alleged transaction, the complainant's allegations are completely
vague regarding the details of the land as well as the mode of
payment and further the complainant as well as his enquiry
witnesses failed to produce any documentary evidence during
the course of enquiry despite the complainant’s statement that
the same would be produced, so, subjecting the petitioner to the
trial for the alleged offences of which cognizance has been
taken would completely be an abuse of the process of the court
as such, the impugned order taking cognizance of the alleged
offences and further proceeding having arisen and started
against the petitioner in the light of the said cognizance order
are hereby quashed and the instant petition stands allowed.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
BKS/-
U T
Checking your session…