PRASHANT KUMARversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32171 of 2019
     Arising out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2018 Thana- MAGADH UNIVERSITY District- Gaya
     ======================================================
1.    Tinku Kumar @ Tinku Singh, S/o Raj Kumar Singh Resident of Badki
      Babhni, P.S.- Magadh University, Distt.- Gaya
2.   Sanjay Kumar Ranjan, S/o Ram Swaroop Yadav Resident of Route Institute
     Bodh Road, Gaya, P.S.- Bodh Gaya, Distt.- Gaya
3.   Dhananjay Kumar @ Chhotu Singh, S/o Chandra Bhushan Singh Resident
     of Rajapur, Bodh Gaya, P.S.- Bodh Gaya, Distt.- Gaya


                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                          Versus
     The State of Bihar


                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                     Mr. Sudha Chandra, Advocate
                                     Ms. Tulika Singh, Advocate
     For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
                      ORAL JUDGMENT

      Date : 11-05-2026

                  By order dated 08.05.2026, the present application with

     regard to Petitioner No. 1 namely Tinku Kumar @ Tinku Singh

     and Petitioner No. 3 namely Dhananjay Kumar @ Chhotu Singh

     was withdrawn.

                  2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

     Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                  3. Petitioner No. 2 namely Sanjay Kumar Ranjan seeks

     quashing of the order of cognizance dated 06.03.2019 passed by
       Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32171 of 2019 dt.11-05-2026
                                  2/7




learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Gaya in

connection with Magadh University P. S. Case No. 106 of 2018 for

the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 and

120(B) of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

           4. The prosecution has been initiated on the statement of

one Sudhir Yadav. He alleges that in the context of land dispute he

was threatened by seven persons including the petitioner. On

30.08.2018, all of them caught him near “Langra Pull Sripur Tar”.

Thereafter, the FIR enters into the area of graphic detailing and

becomes an exclusive case of over-implication. The informant

states that Shankar Yadav caught his collar, Ramswaroop Yadav

caught his neck, Sanjay Kumar Ranjan (Petitioner) caught his both

hands, Mahesh Yadav caught his waist, Dhananjay Kumar alias

Chotu Singh caught his collar from behind and Tinku Singh caught

his hair and then Shankar Yadav, Ramswaroop Yadav alias Master

and Mahesh Yadav exhorted to shoot him in his private part. On

this, Shankar Kumar alias Shri Yadav fired after pointing towards

his private part which hit him in his left rib-cage.

           5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed

towards the injury report which shows lacerated wound upon left

illium or illiuc bone in left flank of abdomen exposing muscles

with loss of skin in front of Injury No. 1. The injury report will not
      Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32171 of 2019 dt.11-05-2026
                                 3/7




even suggest it to be a case of fire arm injury. However, even if it

is presumed to be a firearm injury the only conclusion is that the

bullet touched the body and passed by him. In the backdrop of

admitted land dispute, the FIR itself assumes a serious context. He

may be having some dispute with Shankar Kumar but in his over

anxiety he spread the net very wide. He has not only implicated

others but has attributed specific role as if some novel was being

written or cinema was being played out. Moreover, if he says that

the shot was pointed towards the private part but it struck his rib-

cage then it cannot be a case of point blank firing. The firing must

have been made from a distance. In such a situation, persons who

were surrounding him had every chance of getting hurt instead of

him but nobody got hurt.

          6. Judicial notice must be taken of this tendency of some

seasoned litigants to over implicate people. Over-implication apart

from false implication has been the bane of criminal litigation for

long. An attempt can be made to define the same. The same occurs

in situation where some wrong has been committed with a person

by some particular person. He, however, takes it as an opportunity

to implicate many of his enemies who may not have any role to

play in the crime. In cases of assault it takes the form of being

“member of the mob” and assignment of useless and petty roles to
       Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32171 of 2019 dt.11-05-2026
                                  4/7




accused. “Member of the mob” is a term which is echoing in the

courtroom of Bihar for a very long time. It would mean person

present at the place of occurrence with no specific overt Act. In

matters relating to money transactions it takes the form of persons

other than signatories of the documents like agents who negotiated

the transactions or before whom money was paid.

           7. The legal system is completely aware of such

nefarious activities. This has been taken note of very clearly in

matrimonial disputes, land disputes and criminal cases arising out

of land disputes.

           8. The quashing jurisdiction which has evolved from the

case of State of Karnataka v. L Muniswamy and Ors reported in

(1977) 2 SCC 699 as well as in the case of State of Haryana v.

Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and also in the case of

Md. Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) 20 SCC

194. The relevant paragraph 8 of L Muniswamy case is as under:-

                        “8. Let us then turn to the facts of
              the case to see whether the High Court was
              justified in holding that the proceedings
              against the respondents ought to be quashed in
              order to prevent abuse of the process of the
              court and in order to secure the ends of justice.
              We asked the State counsel time and again to
              point out any data or material on the basis of
              which a reasonable likelihood of the
              respondents being convicted of any offence in
              connection with the attempted murder of the
              complainant could be predicated. A few bits
      Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32171 of 2019 dt.11-05-2026
                                 5/7




             here and a few bits there on which the
             prosecution proposes to rely are woefully
             inadequate for connecting the respondents
             with the crime, howsoever skilfully one may
             attempt to weave those bits into a presentable
             whole. There is no material on the record on
             which any tribunal could reasonably convict
             the respondents for any offence connected with
             the assault on the complainant. It is undisputed
             that the respondents were nowhere near the
             scene of offence at the time of the assault.
             What is alleged against them is that they had
             conspired to commit that assault. This, we
             think, is one of those cases in which a charge
             of conspiracy is hit upon for the mere reason
             that evidence of direct involvement of the
             accused is lacking. We have been taken
             through the statements recorded by the police
             during the course of investigation and the
             other material. The worst that can be said
             against the respondents on the basis thereof is
             that they used to meet one another frequently
             after the dismissal of Accused 1 and prior to
             the commission of the assault on the
             complainant. Why they met, what they said,
             and whether they held any deliberations at all,
             are matters on which no witness has said a
             word. In the circumstances, it would be a sheer
             waste of public time and money to permit the
             proceedings to continue against the
             respondents. The High Court was therefore
             justified in holding that for meeting the ends of
             juslicc the proceedings against the respondents
             ought to be quashed.”

          9. The relevant paragraph 26 of Md. Salib case is as

under:-

                         “26. At this stage, we would like
               to observe something important. Whenever
               an accused comes before the Court invoking
               either the inherent powers under Section
               482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32171 of 2019 dt.11-05-2026
                           6/7




         (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under
         Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
         FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed
         essentially on the ground that such
         proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
         vexatious or instituted with the ulterior
         motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
         circumstances the Court owes a duty to look
         into the FIR with care and a little more
         closely. We say so because once the
         complainant decides to proceed against the
         accused with an ulterior motive for
         wreaking personal vengeance, etc. then he
         would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very
         well drafted with all the necessary
         pleadings. The complainant would ensure
         that the averments made in the
         FIR/complaint are such that they disclose
         the necessary ingredients to constitute the
         alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just
         enough for the Court to look into the
         averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
         for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
         necessary ingredients to constitute the
         alleged offence are disclosed or not. In
         frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the
         Court owes a duty to look into many other
         attending circumstances emerging from the
         record of the case over and above the
         averments and, if need be, with due care and
         circumspection try to read in between the
         lines. The Court while exercising its
         jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or
         Article 226 of the Constitution need not
         restrict itself only to the stage of a case but
         is empowered to take into account the
         overall circumstances leading to the
         initiation/registration of the case as well as
         the materials collected in the course of
         investigation. Take for instance the case on
         hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered
         over a period of time. It is in the background
         of such circumstances the registration of
         multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby
                          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32171 of 2019 dt.11-05-2026
                                                     7/7




                                   attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance
                                   out of private or personal grudge as
                                   alleged.”

                              10. In the backdrop of land dispute coupled with this

                    frivolous case, the order of cognizance dated 06.03.2019 passed by

                    learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Gaya in

                    connection with Magadh University P. S. Case No. 106 of 2018 for

                    the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 and

                    120(B) of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act is quashed so

                    far as the petitioner No. 2 namely Sanjay Kumar Ranjan is

                    concerned.

                              11. With the aforesaid observations, the present

                    application stands allowed.



                                                     (Ansul, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR              NAFR
CAV DATE              N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date