Patna High Court
MD. HAIDER ALIversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The court held that there was no prima facie case against the petitioners and quashed the order summoning them.
Summary
The petitioners, Md. Haider Ali and his wife Husne Ara Haidri, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash an order of the SDJM, Hajipur that had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 376 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code based on a complaint filed by Shahjahan, wife of Taj Ansari. The complaint alleged that the petitioners' son, Asjad Ali (alias Pappu), was involved in a rape and outraging modesty, but made no specific allegation against the petitioners themselves. The petitioners argued that, in the absence of any allegation, no case could be made out against them and invoked the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (para 102) to seek dismissal of the proceedings. The learned counsel for the opposite party concurred that the complaint contained no allegation against the petitioners. The High Court agreed, held that there was no prima facie case against the petitioners, and quashed the order summoning them, allowing the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether cognizance of offences under Sections 376 and 504/34 can be taken against persons not specifically alleged in the complaint.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC on the ground of abuse of process.
- Application of the Bhajan Lal principles (para 102) to the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 376, 504
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Section 482
- Quash Order
- Cognizance
- Rape
- Outraging Modesty
- Abuse of Process
- Bhajan Lal Principles
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25498 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2015 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Md. Haider Ali Son Of Late Raffiquiddin Ansari Resident Of Village-
Sondho Bazar, P.S.- Goraul, Distt- Vaishali
2. Husne Ara Haidri @ Husne Ara Wife Of Md. Haider Ali Resident Of
Village- Sondho Bazar, P.S.- Goraul, Distt- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shahjahan wife of Taj Ansari, resident of Village- Sondho Gulzarbagh, P.S.-
Goraul, District- Vaishali.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pushkar Prashant, Advocate
Ms. Priya Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Gulnar Begum, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
13 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant application has been filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), against the order dated 12.04.2016
passed by the Court of the S.D.J.M., Hajipur in G.R. No. 529 of
2015/Tr. No. 234 of 2016, arising out of Goraul P.S. Case No.
38 of 2015, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken
for the offences under Sections 376 and 504/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior counsel appearing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25498 of 2016(13) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
for the petitioners, submits that in the entire complaint filed by
O.P. No. 2, there is neither any allegation against the present
petitioners, nor is there even a whisper indicating their
involvement with the co-accused, namely Asjad Ali @ Pappu, in
the commission of the alleged physical relationship or rape. He
further submits that even if the entire narrative as set out in the
complaint is assumed to be true, no offence under Sections 376
and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, of which cognizance has been
taken and the petitioners have been summoned, is made out
against them. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others v.
Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,
the cognizance of alleged offences against the petitioners is bad
as the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the
principles laid down in paragraph 102 thereof.
4. Though Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, learned
counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2, opposes this petition but he
fairly accepts that in the entire complaint there is no allegation
against the petitioners.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking
into account the averments made in the present application,
particularly the contents of the complaint filed by O.P. No. 2, I
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25498 of 2016(13) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
find that the role of the petitioners in the commission of the
alleged occurrence does not appear even prima facie, and the
entire allegation of the prosecution is against the son of the
petitioners. Subjecting the petitioners to prosecution for the
alleged offences, of which cognizance has been taken, would
amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the
impugned order summoning the petitioners for the alleged
offences, of which cognizance has been taken, as well as all
subsequent proceedings initiated against them pursuant to the
cognizance order, are hereby set aside/quashed, and the instant
petition stands allowed.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/-
U T
Checking your session…