Patna High Court
Virendra Singh and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The court held that the FIR was filed with malicious intent and the cognizance order amounted to an abuse of process, warranting its quash under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, Virendra Singh and his three sons, filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas, which had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 354, 380, 459, 393, 341 and 34 of the IPC. The petitioners contended that the FIR was lodged by the opposite party, the wife of the petitioner's younger brother, amid a long‑standing civil dispute and prior criminal cases, and that the FIR was filed with a malicious intention to harass them. The court examined the civil suit, the alleged forgery of a compromise petition, and the lack of independent corroboration of the allegations, concluding that the FIR was indeed filed with malafide intent. It held that proceeding on the cognizance order would constitute an abuse of the judicial process and amount to harassment of the petitioners. Consequently, the court quashed the cognizance order and allowed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and the subsequent order taking cognizance were filed with malicious intent constituting an abuse of process
- Whether Section 482 of the CrPC can be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings in the present facts
- Whether the continuation of the criminal trial would amount to harassment of the petitioners
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 341, 354, 380, 393, 459
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Section 482
- Abuse of Process
- Malicious Prosecution
- Civil Dispute
- Quash Order
- IPC Offences
- Harassment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42457 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2016 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Virendra Singh, Son of Late Dharmdeo Singh
2. Arvind Kumar
3. Amrendra Kumar @ Arun Kumar
4. Abhay Kumar
From 2 to 4 are sons of Virendra Singh, All are resident of Village-
Nadauvan, P.S.- Natwar, District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Anurag Singh. APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 16-02-2026 The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been
filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the order
dated 19.01.2017 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Rohtas at
Sasaram, in Mahila P.S. (Rohtas) Case No. 43 of 2016, whereby
and whereunder learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the
offences punishable under Sections 354, 380, 459, 393, 341 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’)
and the petitioners have been summoned for the said offences..
2. Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are sons of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42457 of 2017(4) dt.16-02-2026
2/3
petitioner no. 1, and Opposite party no.2 who filed the FIR is
the wife of the younger brother of the petitioner no.1 and in
between the petitioners and O.P. No.2 there is a long standing
civil dispute and further prior to the filing of the present FIR
by the O.P. No. 2, two criminal cases have already been lodged
from the side of the petitioners and in this regard, Annexures-4
and 5 may be perused and before filing the FIR by the O. P.
No.2, a Title Suit bearing No. 2 of 2016 had been instituted in
between both the parties and other agnates which was decreed
on the basis of a joint compromise and after the decree of that
suit the O.P. No. 2 filed an application challenging the decree
on the ground that her signature on the compromise petition had
been forged and that application is still sub-judice and as far
as the merit of the allegation of assault made by the O.P. No.2
in her application is concerned, during the investigation, no
independent person came in support of the O.P. No.2's
allegations and further O.P. No.2 and her daughters denied to
undergo medical treatment during investigation. It is lastly
submitted that on last occasion, the O.P. no.2's counsel sought
adjournment however today no one has appeared on behalf of
O.P. No.2 which also indicates her malicious intention to harass
the petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42457 of 2017(4) dt.16-02-2026
3/3
3. After hearing of both the sides and considering the
Annexures filed by the petitioners with this petition particularly
the civil dispute running in between both the parties since before
the lodging of the FIR of the present matter and coupled with
this fact that the FIR was lodged by the O.P. No.2 after the
institution of two criminal cases against her and others, this
court is persuaded to form the opinion that the O.P. No. 2
lodged her case with malafide intention to harass the petitioners
and subjecting the petitioners to trial for the alleged offences of
which the cognizance has been taken would only amount to
harassment to them and would be an abuse of process of the
court so, the order impugned taking cognizance of the alleged
offences against the petitioners and subsequent criminal
proceeding having initiated against them in the light of the said
cognizance order are hereby set aside/quashed.
4. In the result, the instant petition stands allowed.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Rajiv/-
U T
Checking your session…