Patna High Court

Sanjay Yadav and AnrversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 8 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SANDEEP KUMAR

Holding

The Court held that the prosecution was malicious and must be quashed as the dispute is civil in nature.

Summary

The petitioners, Sanjay Yadav and Vikash Yadav, were accused in a criminal complaint (Cr. Misc. No. 2154/2012) for alleged offences under IPC sections 385, 448 and 506/34, stemming from a land‑possession dispute with the informant Bipin Bihari Bhola. The police investigation concluded that the FIR and subsequent complaint were false, submitted a final form recommending proceedings under CrPC sections 182 and 211 against the informant for malicious prosecution, and the case was pending before the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioners filed an application seeking quash of the criminal proceeding, arguing that the matter is essentially a civil dispute over land possession and that the prosecution is malicious. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, held that malicious prosecution cannot continue where the underlying issue is civil. Consequently, the application was allowed and the criminal prosecution against the petitioners was quashed, directing the parties to resolve the civil dispute in the district court.

Issues considered

Whether the criminal prosecution instituted against the petitioners is malicious and should be quashed.
Whether the underlying land‑possession matter is a civil dispute, rendering the criminal proceeding inappropriate.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 182, 202, 211
Indian Penal Code — s. 385, 448, 506/34

Subjects

malicious prosecution
civil dispute
quash of criminal proceeding
land encroachment
false FIR
Indian Penal Code
Criminal Procedure Code
Bhajan Lal principle

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40944 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2154 Year-2012 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
1. Sanjay Yadav Son of Ram Lakhan Yadav
2. Vikash Yadav@Vikash Kumar@Chote Kumar@chote sons of late Ram
Charitra Yadav Both Residents of Village- Imanchak, P.s Belaganj, District
Gaya at, Present Mohalla- Ramdaspur Lane, Gurudwara Road, Holding NO.
23/30, ward no. 4A/17,P.s Kotwali District Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Bipin Bihari Bhola son of shivram at Present residing at Dalmiya Compound
Lakhibag, P.s Muffasil,District Gaya.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER

7 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for the State, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and Mr.

Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel for Punjab National Bank.

2. The explanation furnished by the Manager of

Punjab National Bank is accepted.

3. The present application has been filed seeking the

following reliefs:-

‘1. That, this application has been filed for
quashing the order dated 29.07.2015 passed in
Complaint Case No. 2154 of 2012 by Judicial
Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya, whereby and where under
cognizance for the alleged offences under section 385,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40944 of 2015(7) dt.08-01-2026
2/6

448, 506/34 I.P.C. taken against all the accused persons
petitioners herein, which has been taken on the petition
filed as Complaint-cum-protest petition in Kotwali P.S.
Case No. 40 of 2011 dated 12.02.2011 registered u/s 385,
448 I.P.C. wherein final form submitted and the case
found false and proceeding u/s 182, 211 Cr.P.C.
recommended and accordingly to initiate proceeding
against O.P. No.2 and is pending in the Court of Smt.
Sarika Vahelia, J.M. Ist Class, Gaya.
2. The factual matrix of the case inter-alia in
brief is that Bipin Bihari O.P.no. 2 lodged F.I.R. on
11.02.2010 in Kotwali P.S. for the alleged offences under
sections 385, 448 I.P.C. stating therein that named
persons have encroached and stopped him for doing
repair work in the house, which he has purchased in the
name of his wife Bindu Kumari vide registered deed of
sale dated 09.02.2010 bearing house holding no.23/30,
Ward no.4A/17 Ramdaspur Gurudwara and upon said
house under order of the DCLR, the appointed
magistrate and police of Kotwali P.S. handed over
possession of the said house on 11.11.2010 but in night
the accused persons again encroached over the land, this
incidence reported on 12.11.2010. It is alleged that the
accused persons demanded Rs. 2,00,000/-for removing
encroachment and on the basis of F.I.R. Kotwali P.S.
Case No. 40/2011 dated 12.2.2011.
3. After registering the case the I.O. started
investigation and during investi-gation the allegation
found false. One of the accused persons namely Vikash
Kumar @ Chote Kumar son of Late Ram Charitra Yadav
who is working as orderly of Sri Vivek Kumar at that
time posted as S.P. Naugachiya after coming to known
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40944 of 2015(7) dt.08-01-2026
3/6

about lodging of false case made representation before
the police authority and upon enquiry on the application
of accused Vivek Kumar it is found that on the alleged
date and place of occurrence he was not present due to
the reason that he was on duty with Sri Vivek Kumar
I.P.S., S.P. of Naugachiya and for searching truth
provided call details of his mobile phone.
4. The I.O. of the case after analyzing all the
facts found the case false and submitted the facts before
the D.I.G. Magadh Range for necessary order and the
D.I.G. Magadh Range issued direction for submitting
final form with recommendation for initiating proceeding
u/s 182, 211 I.P.C. vide final form no.257/2011 dated
30.09.2011.
5. After submission of final form (Annexure-2)
by the Ι.Ο. of Kotwali P.S. Case No.40/11 12.02.2011 the
O.P.no.2 informant filed protest cum complaint case on
12.10.2011 after long delay which was registered as
complaint case 2010 of no. 2154/2010 after submission
of final form.
6. Prior to this the informant O.P.no.2 has
also filed a Complaint Case in the same set of alleged
occurrence Complaint these Case no.2150 of 2010
against petitioners and the same is pending for disposal.
7. The informant Bipin Bihari Bhola filed
Land Dispute Case no.35/2010-11 before the D.C.L.R.
Gaya Sadar, Gaya and the D.C.L.R., Sadar passed order
dated 15.09.2010 for removing encroachment over the
alleged claimed land of informant and the said order
issued vide memo no.1058 dated 15.09.2010 and deputed
police personnel and on the police personnel visit and
enquiry found no encroachment as alleged.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40944 of 2015(7) dt.08-01-2026
4/6

8. Against the order dated 15.09.2010 passed
in Case no.35/2010-11 the land owners Appeal filed
before the Commissioner Magadh Division, Gaya and
the matter was remitted back for hearing and the hearing
of matter took place afresh and the L.D.Case
No.35/2010-11 dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2011.
9. The Land owners Sampurnananda Mishra
and ors have made application before the City Dy.S.P.
Gaya and enquiry was conducted and it is found that the
applicants are in possession of house and land and the
spot submitted vide Memo inspection report no.2869 of
2010 dated 09.12.2010 to this application.
10. The wife of informant Bindu Kumari has
filed application for mutation of her name in Municipal
record on the basis of purchase vide registered sale-deed
and Mutation case no.107 of 2010 initiated and the
Mutation case no. 107/2010 was decided vide order
dated 23.10.2013 favour in of Sampurnanand Mishra
and ors.
11. From the Complaint Case No.2150/2010
(Annexure-4) and the F.I.R. Kotwali P.S. Case
No.40/2011 (Annexure-1) and protest cum Complaint
Case No.2154/2012 (Anneuxre-3) it is apparent that the
petitioners have been victimized in several cases for one
occurrence and at present two separate criminal case are
going on vide Annexure-3 and 4 which is bad in law.
12. Even on assumption the alleged matter is
of dispute of civil nature relating to possession over the
land which has been decided in favour of land owners
who has kept the petitioners as petitioners are residing
and running dairy business at the house of
Sampurnananda Mishra and others in whose favour
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40944 of 2015(7) dt.08-01-2026
5/6

Mutation Case No.107 of 2010 (Annexure-8) has been
ordered and the informant has lodged false F.I.R. and
complaint case to harass and torture the petitioners.
13. The entire prosecution going on, on the
basis of F.I.R. registered as Kotwali P.S. Case
No.40/2011 and Complaint Case no.2154 of 2012 is
malicious in nature and is tool to grab possession over
the land of land owners of petitioners.
14. During enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. on
complaint cum protest petition only one enquiry witness
examined (informant) and cognizance has been taken
against the accused persons including dead person. The
order taking cognizance is wholly bad, and is a piece of
non consideration of facts and non application of
judicial mind and out come of perverse exercise of
judicial.’

4. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel

for O.P. No. 2 have opposed the application and have submitted

that cognizance taken are being done after application of mine.

5. From the facts noted above it is clear there is civil

dispute between the parties i.e. the petitioners and O.P. No. 2

and litigations are going on. The police after investigation had

found the case false, submitted final form and prayed for

initiating proceedings against the O.P. No. 2 for launching

malicious prosecution. The impugned order has been passed on

a complaint case.

6. In my opinion because of the civil dispute between
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40944 of 2015(7) dt.08-01-2026
6/6

the parties, the present malicious prosecution has been launched.

In light of Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of

Harayana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335

this kind of malicious prosecution should not be allowed to

continue the same.

7. Therefore, this application is allowed. The

prosecution of the petitioner is quashed, the parties may get

their civil dispute finally decided in the district Court.

(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…