Patna High Court
KOMAL NIKHILESH ANANDversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the order dated 26‑08‑2022, holding that the complaint was a malicious prosecution and the allegations were absurd, making continuation of the criminal proceeding an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioners, relatives of Komal Nikhilesh Anand, were accused in a complaint by Akhilesh Anand of demanding Rs 25 lakh, threatening, and stealing jewellery and cash from his house. The petitioners contended that the complaint was a retaliatory, malicious prosecution arising from a 498A case filed by Komal against her husband, and asserted they were not present at the alleged incident, providing alibi documents. The court examined the absence of any injury report, the implausibility of the allegations, and the petitioners' residence in Mumbai, concluding the complaint was absurd and filed with ulterior motives. Relying on precedents such as Bhajan Lal and Girija Prasad Singh, the court held that proceeding would be an abuse of process. Consequently, the order of the Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance under Sections 323, 341 and 379 IPC was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint alleging offences under Sections 323, 341 and 379 IPC is a case of malicious prosecution warranting quashment of the cognizance order.
- Whether the allegations are so absurd and lacking bona fides that the High Court may exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 379, 498A
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 12
Subjects
- malicious prosecution
- quash order
- absurd allegations
- abuse of process
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC offences
- Domestic Violence Act
- Section 498A
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39633 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-647 Year-2021 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Komal Nikhilesh Anand Wife of Nikhilesh Anand R/o Shree Laxmi Residency, C-
1, Flat No. 1801, N.M. Joshi Marg, Opposite Byculla Railway Station, Byculla
West, VTC - Mumbai, P.O. - VJB Udyan, Distt. - Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400027
2. Nilima Suresh Gawand @ Nilima Wife of Suresh Gawand R/o Ganesh Darshan, B
Wing, 5th Floor, Room No. 518, Balu Changu Patil, Opp. Ganesh Mandir,
Umarkhadi, Chinchbunder, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400009
3. Suresh Balkrishna Gawand @ Suresh Gawand @ Suresh Son of Balkrishna
Gawand R/o B Wing, 5th Floor, Room No. 518, Balu Changu Patil, Opp. Ganesh
Mandir, Umarkhadi, Chinchbunder, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400009
4. Sagar Suresh Gawand @ Sagar @ Sagar Gawand Son of Suresh Gawand R/o
Ganesh Darshan, B Wing, 5th Floor, Room No. 518, Balu Changu Patil, Opp.
Ganesh Mandir, Umarkhadi, Chinchbunder, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400009
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Akhilesh Anand Son of Krishna Ballabh Singh Gram - Nadawa, P.S. - Barahiya
Village plus Post - Barahiya, Distt. - Lakhisarai, Bihar and presently reside at C/o -
Triveni Singh, R/o - Mohalla - Station Road Barh, P.S. - Barh, Distt. - Patna also
reside at C/o Vijay Singh, Barh Station Road, ward no.2 Barh, Patna, Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-02-2026
Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar Jha, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, the
learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, the
learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2.
2. The present application has been filed for
quashing of the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the Court
of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barh, Patna, in connection
with Complaint Case No. 647 (C) of 2021 whereby
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39633 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
2/8
cognizance of the offence under Sections 323, 341 and
379/34 of the I.P.C was taken.
3. The short facts of the case arising out of
Complaint bearing complaint Case No. 647 (C) of 2021
relates to the petitioners having come to the house of the
Opposite Party No. 2 and demanding Rs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty
Five Lakh) from him and even threatening of dire
consequences in case of non-payment of the said amount.
Further, allegations against the petitioner nos. 1 and 4 are that
they have snatched bags of the Opposite Party No. 2
containing jewellery worth Rs. 8,00,000/- (Eight Lakh) and
also Rs. 40,000/-(Forty Thousand) cash along with some
clothes and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with
some important documents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the present case is out and out a malicious
prosecution in as much as this case came to be filed as a
counter blast to filing of case under Section 498 A of the IPC
against the brother of the Opposite Party No. 2 who was the
husband of the petitioner no. 1. It has been pointed out that
while petitioner no. 1 is the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the
Opposite Party No. 2, petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the
mother, father and brother of petitioner no. 1 respectively. It
has also been submitted that all the petitioners are residents of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39633 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
3/8
Mumbai, Maharashtra and none of them were present at the
alleged place of occurrence on 12.12.2021 and neither have
they visited the said place any time in the month of December
2021. While petitioner no. 3 is senior citizen, petitioner no. 2
is the wife of the petitioner no. 3. With regard to petitioner
no. 4, a copy of the train tickets and the booking receipt of the
hotel at Rajasthan, has been brought on record by way of
Annexure- 2 to 7 in order to show that he was travelling to
Rajasthan from Bombay and during the period alleged, he
was staying at Rajasthan and visiting places which are also
substantiated by relevant documents. The marriage between
the petitioner no.1 and the brother of the Opposite Party No.
2 had been solemnized on 11.12.2020 at Bombay and on
account of torture and cruelty faced at the hands of her
husband, petitioner no. 1 was compelled to register an FIR
being Agripada P.S. Case No. 657 of 2021 dated 27.07.2021
for an offence under Section 498 A of the IPC and also a
criminal complaint bearing Complaint Case No. 80/DV/21
under Sections 12 of the Protection of Women from the
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the metropolitan
Magistrate, Mazgoan, Mumbai. It is only after the brother of
the Opposite Party No. 2 namely, Nikhilesh Anand, received
notices in the complaint filed by the petitioner no. 1 that the
present complaint case was filed on behalf of the Opposite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39633 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
4/8
Party No. 2, who is the brother of the husband of the
petitioner no. 1. It has also been additionally argued that with
regard to insertion of Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC that no
injury report has been attached by the Opposite Party No. 2 in
order to support his statement made in the complaint. The
learned counsel has relied upon the case of Bhajan Lal Vs.
State of Haryana reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 in order to
contend that the present case squarely falls within the ambit
of malicious prosecution and as such the cognizance order
passed by the learned court concerned is fit to be quashed.
An order of Co-ordinate Bench dated 24.04.2025 passed in
Cr. Misc. No. 43317 of 2022 has also been brought to the
notice of this Court which has been filed against the present
petitioners by the father-in-law of the petitioner no. 1 that is
the father of the present Opposite Party No. 2. The order of
Co-ordinate Bench has taken into consideration the entire
facts and circumstances of the case and after careful
consideration of the applicability of the sections under which
the cognizance was taken in the said case, as also considering
the prosecution to be one attended with ulterior motives of
wreaking vengeance against the petitioners, has held that the
continuation of proceeding against the petitioners would be
an abuse of the process of the Court and accordingly has
quashed the order taking cognizance in the case filed by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39633 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
5/8
father-in-law of the petitioner no. 1 being Complaint Case
No. 152 (C) of 2022.
5. After going through the entire record, it is
apparent that the present case is a glaring example of
malicious prosecution as the same has been filed only with
with a view to harass the petitioners and wreak vengeance
from them since petitioner no. 1 had filed a case under
Section 498 A of the IPC against her husband (brother of the
Opposite Party No.2 ) and other family members and also
filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act. It is clear from
the perusal of the documents that only after issuance of
notices in the case filed by the petitioner no. 1 that the
Opposite Party No. 2, being the brother-in-law of petitioner
no. 1, has taken recourse to filing the present case with
oblique motives and evil design. This Court has also
considered the fact that all the petitioners are residents of
Mumbai and none of them were even present at the time of
occurrence and substantial documents have been filed on
behalf of the petitioner to substantiate the said fact. This
Court also take a serious view of the situation that the malice
carried by the Opposite Party No. 2 is to such an extent that
not only the present case but other criminal cases with
absolutely false and baseless allegations are filed against the
petitioners by different persons of the family only with a view
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39633 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
6/8
to cause undue harassment to these petitioners. Moreover, the
order taking cognizance under Sections 323, 341 and 379 of
the I.P.C would also not stand in view of the fact that none of
the offences appear to be made out against the petitioners and
the allegations as stated earlier apparently seem to be false,
baseless and concocted.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
for the Opposite Party No. 2, however, oppose the present
application for quashing of the order dated 26.08.2022.
7. Taking into consideration all the above mentioned
facts and circumstances, this Court, finds that the allegations
made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable, that no prudent mind can come to a conclusion
that there are sufficient ground for proceeding against the
petitioners as it can hardly be believed that petitioners and her
parents and siblings would go to her own matrimonial house
and indulge in making demand of money and steal away bags
of jewellery and cash. In similar facts, earlier, a Bench of this
Court had considered the absurdity of allegations and
malicious prosecution, as good grounds to quash the
proceedings, in the case of Girija Prasad Singh & Anr. vs.
State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2013(2) BBCJ 103: 2012
SCC Online Pat 458. The Hon’ble Apex Court also has held
in the case of Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan vs. Ram
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39633 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
7/8
Gopal Poddar & Anr., reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 23 (SC), in
similar factual scenario that the High Court has tremendous
power to pass an order in the interest of justice where
allegations are so absurd that no reasonable man would
accept the same. Para 10 of the abovementioned judgment is
being quoted here under:-
“10. The learned counsel for the appellant is,
therefore, right in contending that the
complaint had to be quashed, firstly, because
it was absurd and secondly, because the
complainant/respondent No. 1 wholly lack the
bona fides in filing such complaint which was
absurd.The learned Counsel for the
respondent No. 1 vehemently argued that at
this stage, what was to be seen was only the
contents of the complaint and if there
appeared the basic contentions indicating
committing of crime by the appellant/accused,
then the Courts would not interfere with the
same and leave the parties to lead evidence
during the ensuing trial, relying on the oft-
quoted decision in State of Haryana & Ors.
vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.(1) SCC
335]. There can be no dispute about the law
laid down in that case. However, where on the
face of it the absurd charges are levelled and
there is a whole lack of the bona fides of the
complainant/respondent No. 1, in our
opinion, there would be no fetter in using the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
8. Thus, considering the present proceeding to be
one glaring case of malacious prosecution coupled with the
ground of absurdity of allegations, covered both by clause (5)
and (7) of Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court would proceed to
quash the order dated 26.08.2022 as the continuation of any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39633 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
8/8
criminal proceeding in the present matter against the
petitioners would only be an abuse of the process of the
Court and would cause grave miscarriage of justice.
9. Accordingly, the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barh, Patna in
connection with Complaint Case No. 647 (C) of 2021 are
quashed and the application stands allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…