Patna High Court
Bikko Khan and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The order taking cognizance and the ensuing proceedings are quashed as the complaint fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and amounts to a mala‑fide prosecution.
Summary
The petitioners, including Bikko Khan and his relatives, filed an application to quash criminal proceedings initiated by a complaint filed by Arshida Khanam alleging that Bikko Khan misappropriated Rs.30,000 meant for house construction under the Indira Awas Yojna and that the accused assaulted and stole from her. The petitioners contended that the complaint was vague, omnibus, and stemmed from a civil dispute, constituting a mala‑fide prosecution. The State opposed, asserting that the magistrate correctly took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 379, 343 and 344 IPC. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s Bhajan Lal principles, held that the allegations did not disclose the essential ingredients of any cognizable offence and appeared to be an abuse of process. Consequently, the order dated 07‑07‑2014 and all consequent proceedings were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence sufficient to justify taking cognizance.
- Whether the proceedings constitute a mala‑fide prosecution and abuse of process.
- Whether the order of the Judicial Magistrate should be quashed under the Bhajan Lal doctrine.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 343, 344, 379
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash
- mala fide prosecution
- cognizance
- Indian Penal Code
- civil dispute
- abuse of process
- Bhajan Lal doctrine
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29010 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-255 Year-2012 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Supaul
======================================================
1. Bikko Khan son of Late Chhitan Khan
2. Lal Mohammad Khan, son of Late Wahid Khan,
3. Phoolo Khan @ Phool Mohammad Khan, son of Late Wahid Khan,
4. Irshad Khan @ Md. Irshad Khan, son of Moti Khan,
5. Niharul Khan @ Neharul Khan, son of Massi Khan,
6. Insharul Khan @ Ansarul Khan, son of Massi Khan,
7. Irfan Khan, son of Md. Gulab Khan
8. Md. Chhedi Khan, son of Md. Lalo Khan, All residents of village- Thadhi
Bhawanipur, P.S.- Pipra, District- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Arshida Khanam, wife of Bikko Khan, resident of village- Thadhi
Bhawanipur, P.S.- Pipra, District- Supaul
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Masleh-Uddin Ashraf, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Hema Yunus, Advocate
Mr. Shehan Asharf, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J. Upadhyay App
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
7 06-01-2026 Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
and the learned counsel for the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the
order dated 07.07.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 255C of
2012 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Supaul by which
cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379,
343/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken and further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29010 of 2015(7) dt.06-01-2026
2/4
directions were issued for issuance of summons to the
petitioners.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
complainant, Arshida Khanam (OP No. 2) filed the instant
complaint case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Supaul against all the petitioners on 31.03.12 alleging therein
inter alia that her husband, Bikko Khan (petitioner No. 1), had
taken Rs. 30,000/, which was received by the complainant for
construction of house under Indira Awas Yojna. Other accused
persons also hatched conspiracy in the alleged offence and on
23.03.12, she was assaulted by the accused persons after taking
her jewelry, cash and mobile phone and finally she fled away
from her sasural on 29.03.12.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
complaint does not disclose the commission of any cognizable
offence against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the
allegations are vague, omnibus and arise out of a purely
personal and civil dispute, which has been given a colour of
criminal prosecution only to harass the petitioners. This kind of
mala-fide prosecution is nothing but an abuse of the process of
the court. The petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the complainant
and the other petitioners are the family members of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29010 of 2015(7) dt.06-01-2026
3/4
petitioner no. 1. The present case is nothing but a mala-fide
prosecution actuated by malice as the same is a counter blast of
Pipra P.S. Case No. 32 of 2012.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposes the application and submits that the learned Magistrate
has rightly taken cognizance on the basis of the complaint.
6. I have heard and considered the rival submissions
and perused the materials available on record.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana & Ors. Versus Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in AIR
1992 SC 604: 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has held that mala fide
prosecution cannot be allowed to continue.
8. On careful examination of the materials available
on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the
petitioners are general in nature and do not disclose the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged. There is no specific material
to show wrongful confinement or theft nor are there specific
overt acts attributed to the petitioners to make out an offence as
alleged. The dispute appears to be purely of a civil nature which
has been given the colour of a criminal case only to wreck
vengeance upon the petitioners.
6. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29010 of 2015(7) dt.06-01-2026
4/4
Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), the order
dated 07.07.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 255C of 2012
by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Supaul and all the
consequential proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.
255C of 2012 are hereby quashed.
7. In view of the above, the application stands
allowed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…