Patna High Court
Arvind Chaudhary @ Arvind KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The High Court quashed the order taking cognizance and the criminal proceedings on the ground of procedural infirmities and malicious prosecution.
Summary
The petitioners Arvind Chaudhary, his wife Juli Devi and Sunaina Devi sought to quash a complaint filed by informant Sabo Devi alleging assault, outraging modesty and theft under IPC sections 323, 379 and 504. The petitioners argued that the complaint was a retaliatory ‘counter‑blast’ filed after an unexplained 15‑day delay and without the mandatory affidavit required by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava. The State opposed the quash petition, supporting the magistrate’s order taking cognizance. The Patna High Court held that the failure to attach an affidavit, the unexplained delay, and the nature of the complaint as a malicious prosecution fell within the parameters of Bhajan Lal’s test for abuse of process. Consequently, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the order and the ensuing criminal proceedings.
Issues considered
- The complaint was filed without the affidavit mandated by Supreme Court precedent.
- The 15‑day delay in lodging the complaint raises a question of its genuineness.
- Whether the complaint constitutes malicious prosecution/abuse of process under the Bhajan Lal test.
- Whether the court has inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 379, 504
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- complaint
- quash
- malicious prosecution
- affidavit requirement
- inherent jurisdiction
- abuse of process
- IPC sections 323, 379, 504
- delay
- counter complaint
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38410 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-813 Year-2024 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE
District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Arvind Chaudhary @ Arvind Kumar son of Late Mahendra Chaudhary R/o -
Murhena, P.S - Rajauli, District - Nawadah
2. Juli Devi @ July Kumari @Jully Devi wife of Arvind Chaudhary @ Arvind
Kumar R/o - Murhena, P.S - Rajauli, District - Nawadah
3. Sunaina Devi Wife of Late Mahendra Chaudhary R/o - Murhena, P.S -
Rajauli, District - Nawadah
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sabo Devi Wife of Nande Chaudhary R/o - Murhena, P.S - Rajauli, District -
Nawadah
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as the
informant.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
of the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed in Complaint
Case No. 813 of 2024 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate–I, Nawadah, whereby cognizance of offences under
Sections 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code ( for brevity
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38410 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
2/4
‘the IPC’) has been taken against the petitioners.
3. The prosecution case, as alleged in the complaint,
is that the petitioners assaulted and abused the informant,
outraged her modesty and allegedly took away her silver
ornaments and cash. It is further alleged that when the
informant’s husband intervened, the petitioners assaulted him
with lathi and danda, causing swelling on his arm, and also
assaulted her son.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
present complaint has been lodged as a counter blast case after
an unexplained delay of 15 days, which casts serious doubt on
the genuineness of the complaint case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the complaint petition is not supported by a duly sworn
affidavit, which is in clear violation of the mandatory
requirement laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, wherein it has been held that a
complaint seeking criminal action must be accompanied by an
affidavit so as to curb frivolous and vexatious litigation. In the
absence of such affidavit, the complaint lacks legal sanctity and
the criminal proceeding initiated thereon becomes legally
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38410 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
3/4
unsustainable.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed
reliance in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, contending that the present
case is a example of malicious prosecution instituted with an
ulterior motive, and therefore liable to be quashed.
7. It is further contended that the materials available
on record do not support or corroborate the allegations made in
the complaint, and no prima facie case is made out against the
petitioners.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as
the informant has supported the impugned order and opposed
the prayer for quashing.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials
available on record, this Court finds that the present complaint
appears to be a counter complaint, arising out of prior animosity
between the parties. The delay of 15 days in lodging the
complaint has not been satisfactorily explained. Further, the
mandatory requirement of filing an affidavit, as laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava
(supra), has been completely ignored by the learned Magistrate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38410 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
4/4
while taking cognizance.
10. This Court also finds that the order taking
cognizance is cryptic, mechanical and non-speaking, and does
not reflect proper application of judicial mind to the facts and
materials on record.
11. The instance case squarely falls within the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), warranting exercise of
inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of the court
and to secure the ends of justice.
12. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
13. The impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed in
Complaint Case No. 813 of 2024 by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate–I, Nawadah, and the entire criminal
proceeding arising there from, are hereby quashed.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 15.01.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…