Patna High Court
SHANKAR YADAVversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The order of cognizance dated 06.03.2019 is quashed as to petitioner No. 2 because the proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioners, arising from a land dispute, sought to quash the order of cognizance dated 06.03.2019 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate‑IX, Gaya, for offences under several IPC sections and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution was based on the statement of Sudhir Yadav, who alleged that seven persons, including petitioner Sanjay Kumar Ranjan, assaulted and attempted to shoot him. The court examined the injury report, finding inconsistencies and concluding that the FIR was likely fabricated and the alleged firearm injury was implausible. Relying on precedents such as State of Karnataka v. L Muniswamy and Md. Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court held that the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. Consequently, the order of cognizance was quashed as to petitioner No. 2, and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of cognizance dated 06.03.2019 should be quashed on the ground of frivolous or vexatious prosecution.
- Whether the FIR and the material on record disclose a reasonable likelihood of conviction against petitioner No. 2.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC/Article 226 to quash the criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 341
Subjects
- quash jurisdiction
- frivolous prosecution
- over‑implication
- land dispute
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 147 IPC
- criminal procedure
Judgment
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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.