RAVIKANT MISHRA @ GUDDU MISHRAversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51883 of 2023
     Arising out of PS. Case No.-421 Year-2018 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran
     ======================================================
1.    Ravikant Mishra @ Guddu Mishra, Son of Janardan Mishra, Resident of
      Village - Virti Tola, Lacchu Chhapar, Ps- Chanpatia, Distt- West Champaran
2.   Lalbabu Sharma, Son of Late Gangotar Rai, Resident of Village -
     Mehadiya , Ps- Chanpatia, Distt- West Champaran
3.   Pushpa Devi, Wife of Harishankar Mishra, Resident of Village - Virti Tola,
     Lacchu Chhapar, PS- Chanpatia, Distt- West Champaran
4.   Vicky Mishra @ Abhinav Kumar, Son of Vinod Mishra, Resident of Village
     - Virti Tola, Lacchu Chhapar, PS- Chanpatia, Distt- West Champaran


                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                          Versus
     The State of Bihar

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :         Mr. P. N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
                                      Mr. Rajnish Shandilya, Advocate
     For the State          :         Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP
     For the Informant      :         Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate
                                      Mr Ram Krishna Prasad, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
                           ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 13-05-2026

                 Heard P. N. Shahi, learned senior counsel assisted with

     Mr. Rajnish Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.

     Rajendra Narain, learned senior counsel assisted with Mr. Ram

     Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Ram

     Bilash Roy Raman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

     State.


                 2. Petitioners seek quashing of the order of cognizance

     dated 28.04.2023 passed in connection with Chanpatia P.S. Case
                Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51883 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
                                  2/10




No. 421 of 2018 (Tr. No. 2304 of 2022) whereby and whereunder

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah,

has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149,

341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 337, 338, 504, 302 and 120(B) of IPC.


            3. The allegation in the FIR is that arising out of a petty

dispute, a scuffle ensued between the son of the informant and

Petitioner No. 4 over the parking of a tractor loaded with soil on

the road.


            4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners have come up before this court challenging the

order of cognizance taken after differing with the final report

submitted by the police. He further submits that Petitioner Nos. 2

and 3 are aged persons and Petitioner No. 2 namely Lalbabu

Sharma was under treatment of malignancy since the year 2017

and the occurrence is of the year 2018. The documents of

treatment are attached from the reputed institutions like Medanta

Hospital, ILS and other hospitals. The Petitioner No. 3, Pushpa

Devi is a lady. The allegation of assault against both of them is of

a general and omnibus nature. Nine persons have been named in

the FIR out of which seven are facing trial. The Petitioner No. 1

Ravikant Mishra @ Guddu Mishra and Pushpa Devi are members
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51883 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
                               3/10




of the same family. Lal Babu Sharma is a stranger to the family

while Pushpa Devi is a member of the family.


         5. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the specific

allegations against Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 3 are that

they were present at the scene and raised a lalkaar. No overt act of

assault, no weapon attribution, and no specific role in the fatal

incident is attributed to them in the FIR or the statements under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. The investigation itself culminated in a final

report in their favour, the investigating officer having found

insufficient material against them. The learned CJM differed with

the final report but the cognizance order does not assign any

specific reason for doing so in respect of these two petitioners.


         6. Learned senior counsel for the informant as well as

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently

opposed the quashing of the cognizance order dated 28.04.2023.


         7. Judicial notice has been taken of the fact that the

witnesses or litigants in India have a tendency to false implication

as well as over-implication in cases of matrimonial dispute and

group violence particularly when the basis is of land dispute. This

has been noticed way back by the privy council where it was held

that Indian witnesses have a tendency to ornament their evidence.
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51883 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
                                4/10




         8. The false implication or over-implication occurs

initially in the FIR itself. It can be tested either at the stage of

quashing or at the stage of trial.


         9. In the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Ors v. Special

Judicial Magistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749. The relevant

paras 28 and 29 are as under:-


                     “28. Summoning of an accused in a
           criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law
           cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It
           is not that the complainant has to bring only two
           witnesses to support his allegations in the
           complaint to have the criminal law set into
           motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning
           the accused must reflect that he has applied his
           mind to the facts of the case and the law
           applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature
           of allegations made in the complaint and the
           evidence both oral and documentary in support
           thereof and would that be sufficient for the
           complainant to succeed in bringing charge home
           to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a
           silent spectator at the time of recording of
           preliminary evidence before summoning of the
           accused. The Magistrate has to carefully
           scrutinise the evidence brought on record and
           may even himself put questions to the
           complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to
           find out the truthfulness of the allegations or
           otherwise and then examine if any offence is
           prima facie committed by all or any of the
           accused.”
         10. The crux of the order is that if allegation in the

complaint and the material on record do not disclose any offence

or role of the accused, the High Court ought to exercise its
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51883 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
                               5/10




jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 to quash the

proceedings, as compelling the accused to face trial would amount

to abuse of process of law. It has also been held that summoning

of an accused is a serious matter and the same could not be

without any reasons. This court is conscious of the fact that

reasons have been assigned in the cognizance order.


         11. 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 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
            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
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51883 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
                                6/10




             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 justice the proceedings against the
             respondents ought to be quashed.”


         12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has expanded the scope

of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 (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
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51883 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
                               7/10




        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
        482 CrPC 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 attracting the issue of
        wreaking vengeance out of private or personal
        grudge as alleged.”


         13. The most serious charge levelled is under Section 302

IPC. The FIR does not attribute the fatal blow or any direct act of

causing the death of the deceased to Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. In the

absence of any specific act connecting them to the offence of

murder, their liability, if any, can only be founded on vicarious
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51883 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
                               8/10




liability under Sections 149 or 120-B IPC. However, the formation

of an unlawful assembly or criminal conspiracy requires a specific

meeting of minds, and no such specific allegation of agreement or

shared object is made against these two petitioners.


         14. The initial idea was that if prima facie case is there

the petitioner is bound to face trial. The case of Md. Salib (supra)

has taken note of the case of over-implication, though not in those

words, and has held that in case of a litigation, the FIR or the

complaint may well have been drafted with caution and there may

be allegations which may constitute prima facie offence. The court

has a duty to read between the lines and see as to whether the

person is to be sent to trial. No doubt there are allegations against

these two petitioners but one of them is a cancer patient fighting a

deadly disease and is also of advanced age. Another petitioner is a

lady. The dispute is there and the backdrop seems to be a dispute

between neighbours. Seven persons are facing trial. One is old and

infirm and another is a lady. Their exoneration would not kill the

cause of litigation and grievance of the informant.


         15. Though the final report was submitted against all the

four, the court is of the opinion that the allegations against

Petitioner Nos. 1 and 4, namely Ravikant Mishra @ Guddu

Mishra and Vicky Mishra @ Abhinav Kumar respectively, are
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51883 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
                                9/10




general and omnibus in nature; they must face trial. The issues of

common intention and common object cannot be adjudicated at

this stage. Accordingly, this court is not inclined to quash the

proceeding against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 4, Ravikant Mishra @

Guddu Mishra and Vicky Mishra @ Abhinav Kumar respectively.


         16. The distinguishing feature between the two sets of

petitioners is the specificity of allegation. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 4

are the protagonists of the FIR — the genesis of the dispute is

attributed to Petitioner No. 4’s tractor, and Petitioner No. 1 is

alleged to have led the mob. These specific roles justify their trial.

No equivalent specificity exists for Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3.


         17. In such view of the matter, the order of cognizance

dated 28.04.2023 passed in connection with Chanpatia P.S. Case

No. 421 of 2018 (Tr. No. 2304 of 2022) whereby and whereunder

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah,

has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149,

341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 337, 338, 504, 302 and 120(B) of IPC is

quashed so far as Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 namely Lal Babu

Sharma and Pushpa Devi respectively are concerned. Petitioner

Nos. 1 and 4, Ravikant Mishra @ Guddu Mishra and Vicky

Mishra @ Abhinav Kumar respectively, will face the trial.
                               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51883 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
                                                10/10




                           18. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed.




                                                 (Ansul, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR            NAFR
CAV DATE            N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date