AMAR NATHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27163 of 2019
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2014 Thana- SHRIKRISHNAPURI District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Amar Nath Son Of Dr. Shambhu Nath Resident Of Village - Indu Bhawan,
                 House No.3, Gandhi Nagar, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Krishnapuri, Dist.- Patna
                 800001

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State Of Bihar Bihar
           2.    Smt. Arti @ Madhu Wife Of Dr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava Resident Of
                 Village - M-3/30, Basawan Park, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Sri Krishnapuri, Dist.-
                 Patna.800001

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. M.N. Parbat, Sr. Advocate
                                                 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
                 For the O.P. No. 2       :      Mr. Raj Kumar Goshwami, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   20-01-2026                   Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   APP for the State and the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

                                 2. This application has been filed for quashing the

                   order of cognizance dated 12.11.2014, passed by the learned

                   Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Patna, in connection with Sri

                   Krishnapuri P.S. Case No. 94 of 2014 (Tr. No. 3549 of 2014) by

                   which cognizance was taken of offences under Sections 341,

                   323, 504 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner.

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

                   was running a hostel in a building known as Nikhil Cottage. The

                   children residing in the hostel were facing acute water problems,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27163 of 2019(3) dt.20-01-2026
                                            2/6




          regarding which the informant informed the landowner. The

          landowner asked her to get the boring repaired through any

          mechanic, stating that he would not bear the expenses.

          Accordingly, the informant engaged a mechanic, and on

          14.03.2014 the repair work of the boring was started. The said

          repair work was intermittently supervised by the landowner.

          However, on 23.03.2014, the landowner suddenly abused the

          mechanic, forcibly snatched his tools, and also took away the

          pipe purchased by the informant. It is further alleged that since

          the boring was not functioning properly despite repairs, the

          mechanic continued to work, and during this period she

          frequently visited the site, upon which the landowner levelled

          false allegations against her. The informant further stated that

          under Section 10 of the Bihar Building (Rent, Eviction &

          Control) Act, stopping basic amenities to a tenant amounts to a

          criminal offence. She therefore requested that the landowner

          desist from such acts and allow the continuance of basic

          facilities.

                        4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner

          submits that the FIR was initially registered under Sections 341,

          323, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the charge sheet was

          submitted under Sections 341, 323, and 504 IPC. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27163 of 2019(3) dt.20-01-2026
                                            3/6




          cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st

          Class, Patna, on 12.11.2014, and Tr. No. 3549 of 2014 was

          initiated. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely

          implicated in this case due to personal enmity. This case is a

          counterblast to Sri Krishnapuri P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014, filed

          by the petitioner on 22.03.2014 against the first informant and

          others for theft of boring pipes, misbehaviour, and threats. In

          that case, the accused, Smt. Arti @ Madhu, had taken part of the

          petitioner’s house on rent but refused to vacate after the lease

          expired on 14.03.2014, demanding ₹2 lakhs for vacating the

          premises.

                       5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

          further submits that the petitioner owns a house named Indu

          Bhawan in Gandhi Nagar, Sri Krishnapuri Police Station area,

          which was rented to the first informant under a lease that

          expired on 14.03.2014. When the petitioner requested the

          informant to vacate, she refused, stopped paying rent, and filed

          multiple cases to pressure the petitioner. These included B.B.C.

          Case No. 29 of 2014, which was decided against the informant

          on 11.12.2014, and Title Suit No. 5298 of 2014, dismissed by

          the learned Sub-Judge VIII, Patna on 19.07.2016. The first

          informant vacated the premises in 2014. He further submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27163 of 2019(3) dt.20-01-2026
                                            4/6




          the present case was filed with malafide intent to exert pressure

          on the petitioner to abandon his lawful claim for eviction. No

          specific allegations of overt acts have been made against the

          petitioner in the first information report; rather, he is accused

          with vague and sweeping allegations linked to a land dispute.

          The investigation revealed that none of the witnesses were

          eyewitnesses, and their statements were inconsistent with the

          informant’s version. The dispute is clearly a civil matter related

          to the tenancy of the petitioner’s property, as reflected in the

          contradictory statements of the witnesses.

                       6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

          further submits that even if the allegations are taken as true

          (which the petitioner denies), no offence under Sections 341,

          323, or 504 IPC is made out against the petitioner. The case is

          primarily a civil dispute, and the criminal proceedings are being

          used to apply undue pressure on the petitioner. The prosecution

          has been initiated with malafide intentions to harass the

          petitioner, using the criminal forum for a civil dispute. There is

          no legal evidence against the petitioner, and the case concerns a

          civil dispute regarding tenancy, not a criminal matter. Therefore,

          the continuation of these proceedings amounts to an abuse of the

          court’s process and should be quashed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27163 of 2019(3) dt.20-01-2026
                                            5/6




                       7. In support of his submission, the learned Senior

          Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the

          Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors

          V/s Bhajan Lal & Ors, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

                       8. Per-contra, the learned APP appearing for the State

          and the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 have vehemently

          opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

                       9. After considering the arguments of all parties and

          the materials on record, it is clear that the present case is

          primarily a civil dispute related to tenancy, and there is no legal

          evidence to sustain the criminal charges against the petitioner.

          The prosecution appears to have been initiated with malafide

          intention in order to harass the petitioner and exert undue

          pressure. The allegations against the petitioner, even if accepted

          at face value, do not constitute the offence as alleged. In the

          opinion of this Court, the continuation of the criminal

          proceedings in this case would be an abuse of the process of the

          court.

                       10. In light of the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal

          (Supra) and the facts of the case, the impugned order of

          cognizance dated 12.11.2014 and the consequential proceedings

          arising out of Sri Krishnapuri P.S. Case No. 94 of 2014 are
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27163 of 2019(3) dt.20-01-2026
                                                        6/6




                      hereby quashed.

                                   11. The application stands allowed.

                                   12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

                      disposed of.



                                                              (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-

U       T