Patna High Court
Kewal JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The application is allowed; the order dated 12‑Oct‑2018 is set aside and the complaint quashed.
Summary
The petitioner Kewal Jha was served summons under Sections 406 and 504 IPC after a complaint by Shambhu Prasad Nunia alleging non‑payment of Rs 50,000 in wages while Jha was In‑charge Principal of R.D.S. College. Jha contended that the complainant’s appointment was irregular, that the alleged dues arose before his tenure, and that the complaint was frivolous and amounted to malicious prosecution. The High Court examined the complaint and found no prima facie case against Jha, noting that the grievance pertained to the college’s failure to pay wages, not to any criminal breach of trust by the petitioner. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sunil Bharti Mittal v CBI and State of Haryana v Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process. Consequently, the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 12‑Oct‑2018 was set aside and the complaint quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint under Sections 406 and 504 IPC against the petitioner discloses a prima facie case.
- Whether the proceedings constitute malicious prosecution and abuse of process of law.
- Whether the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate issuing summons should be quashed.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 504
Subjects
- malicious prosecution
- abuse of process
- frivolous complaint
- quashing of criminal proceedings
- non‑payment of wages
- IPC 406
- IPC 504
- Bihar Universities Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30564 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-678 Year-2018 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Katihar
======================================================
Kewal Jha, S/o Nageshwar Jha, R/o Sewanagar, Ward No. 25, Baigna,
Katihar, P.S. - Katihar, Distt. - Katihar, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Shambhu Prasad Nunia, S/o Khokha Nunia, R/o vill - Tahirpur Ramol, P.S. -
Ajamnagar, Distt. - Katihar, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-02-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Despite valid service of notice on opposite
party No. 2, nobody appears on his behalf.
3. This is an application seeking quashing of the
order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Court of learned Addl.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30564 of 2024 dt.25-02-2026
2/6
Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Katihar in connection with
Complaint Case No. 678 of 2018, whereby, after taking
cognizance of the matter, summons have been issued against the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 and 504 of the
Indian Penal Code.
4. The facts giving rise to the present application
is to the effect that a complaint was filed against the petitioner
by the complainant/opposite party No. 2, namely, Shambhu
Prasad Nunia, who was a 4th grade employee in the R.D.S.
College, Salamari, Katihar and his appointment was made by
the then In-charge Principal, Shasuzoha Saheb, on contract basis
on 11.08.2004. It has been alleged by the complainant/opposite
party No. 2 that he has not been paid Rs. 2,500/- per month
since 01st of August, 2016 to March, 2018, i.e., for twenty (20)
months, which comes to the tune of Rs. 50,000/. It has further
been alleged that the petitioner, with bad intention, has not paid
the complainant/opposite party No. 2, the remuneration of Rs.
2,500/- per month, totaling to Rs. 50,000/-.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that he is quite innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. It has been submitted that the allegations levelled against
the petitioner are false, fabricated and concocted and having no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30564 of 2024 dt.25-02-2026
3/6
essence of truth. It has further been submitted that the petitioner
is a retired college teacher and was In-charge Principal of
R.D.S. College, Salamari, Katihar. It has next been submitted
that the petitioner became In-charge Principal of R.D.S. College
on 01st of August, 2016 and continued till 15 th of July, 2018. It
has been submitted that the complainant/opposite party No. 2
was not lawfully appointed and his appointment was without
any advertisement and without following the due process of law.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the payments made to the complainant/opposite
party No. 2, prior to the petitioner’s tenure as In-charge
Principal, were objected to in the Audit-Report as unauthorized
since there was no approval from the B. N. Mandal University.
It has also been submitted that a Vigilance inquiry regarding this
and other financial irregularities was initiated against the
predecessor of the petitioner, which is still pending.
7. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that allowing such payments, which are claimed from
the petitioner by the complainant/opposite party No. 2, would
amount to contravention of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976. It
has been submitted that the learned Court below has taken
cognizance in a very mechanical manner and issued summons
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30564 of 2024 dt.25-02-2026
4/6
against the petitioner, despite the fact that during the enquiry, no
material has come-forth to reason out the issuing of summons
for such offences. In support of his contention, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal V.
Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609.
8. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer made in the present
application and has submitted that the petitioner, while holding
the post, had misappropriated the funds and has also violated the
statutory provisions of law, which resulted in breach of trust
reposed in him by the State and the public at large.
9. After having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State
and on perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires
that this is a case of grave misuse of the process of the Court as,
admittedly, the complaint has been filed by the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 with regard to non-payment of
the due amount from the college. The allegations levelled in the
complaint is to the effect that the petitioner happens to be the In-
charge Principal of the college at the relevant point of time and
despite repeated request, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30564 of 2024 dt.25-02-2026
5/6
paid by him to the complainant/opposite party No. 2.
10. From the plain reading of the complaint, it is
evident that the allegation is with regard to non-payment of the
wages, which were to be paid to the complainant/opposite party
No. 2 for his services given to the R.D.S. College, Salamari,
Katihar. To the understanding of this Court, this is an apt
example of a frivolous complaint filed against the petitioner as
there is no ground to proceed ahead in this case, where prima
facie allegation is of non-payment of wages, that too not by the
petitioner but rather the college concerned.
11. This Court is of the view that the case in hand
is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal
and Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, as from the bare reading
of the complaint case, no prima facie case is being made out
against the petitioner coupled with the fact that for non-payment
of wages the complaint was filed which also amounts to
malicious prosecution and, therefore, the continuation of the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner on such frivolous
complaint would amount to abuse of process of law.
12. Thus, in view of the facts afore-stated and the
settled principle of law, laid down in the case of State of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30564 of 2024 dt.25-02-2026
6/6
Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra), the
present application with respect to the petitioner, above-named,
stands allowed and the impugned order dated 12.10.2018,
referred to above, with respect to him, is set aside.
Consequently, the complaint, bearing Complaint Case No. 678
of 2018, and all consequent proceedings initiated pursuant
thereto with respect to the petitioner, above-named, stand
quashed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 26.02.2026
Transmission Date 26.02.2026
Checking your session…