Patna High Court
Upendra Singh and AnrversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The order of cognizance dated 15‑01‑2001 is set aside and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are quashed as an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioners, Upendra and Birendra Singh, filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the order of cognizance dated 15‑01‑2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate in Complaint No.1605 (C) of 1999, which alleged forgery, fraud and criminal conspiracy relating to a deed of gift. They argued that the same facts had already been litigated in Complaint No.157 (C) of 1985, where the accused were discharged, and that the present complaint was filed after an inordinate delay, making the dispute essentially civil and barred by limitation. The court noted that a coordinate bench had earlier quashed the same proceeding against another co‑accused on the ground of abuse of process. Relying on that precedent and the fact that the allegations were identical, the court held that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the court’s process. Consequently, the order of cognizance was set aside and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the criminal prosecution arising from Complaint No.1605 (C) of 1999 amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.
- Whether the earlier discharge of the accused in Complaint No.157 (C) of 1985 bars the present complaint.
- Whether the dispute is civil in nature and thus outside the jurisdiction of criminal courts.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to the same relief as granted to a co‑accused in a prior coordinate bench decision.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 419, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- abuse of process
- quash of criminal proceeding
- Section 482 CrPC
- duplicate complaint
- limitation period
- civil dispute
- forgery
- criminal conspiracy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66024 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1605 Year-1999 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Upendra Singh
2. Birendra Singh. Both are Sons of Late Bindeshwar Singh, Resident of
Mohalla- Sheikhpura, P.S.- Lal Bahadur Shastri Nagar Now Hawai Adda,
District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Smt. Shanti Devi, W/o Sri Ramjeet Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Sheikhpura,
P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Dist- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kr. Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kritya Nand Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
5 29-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been preferred under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the order dated
15.01.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in connection with
Complaint Case No.1605 (C) of 1999, wherein the learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under
Sections 419, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66024 of 2018(5) dt.29-06-2026
2/8
1860 against the present petitioners and other accused persons.
3. The prosecution of the present petitioners arises out
of Complaint Case No.1605 (C) of 1999 instituted by O.P. No.2,
alleging commission of offences under Sections 419, 467, 468,
471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint pertains
to an alleged fraudulent deed of gift dated 17.10.1984 in favour
of the petitioners, which, according to the complainant (O.P.
No.2), was brought into existence by impersonation and forgery
with an intention to defeat the effect of two earlier registered
deeds of gift dated 16.07.1984 allegedly executed by Smt.
Lachhiya Devi of her Naihari properties in favour of the
complainant (O.P. No.2) and her husband. It has been alleged
that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and
fabricated the subsequent deed of gift by setting up an impostor
in place of the executant, thereby causing wrongful loss to the
complainant (O.P. No.2).
4. Upon consideration of the complaint petition, the
solemn affirmation of the complainant and the materials
collected during the inquiry, the learned Magistrate, vide the
impugned order dated 15.01.2001, found a prima facie case to
be made out and accordingly took cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66024 of 2018(5) dt.29-06-2026
3/8
Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners and the other
accused persons. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned
order of cognizance dated 15.01.2001 and the consequential
criminal prosecution arising therefrom, the present application
has been preferred invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court for quashing of the said impugned order as well as the
entire criminal proceeding.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order suffers from patent illegality inasmuch as the
present complaint is founded on the very same set of allegations
and cause of action which had earlier been made the subject
matter of Complaint Case No.157 (C) of 1985 instituted by Smt.
Lachhiya Devi herself who was mother-in-law of the
complainant (O.P. No.2). It is submitted that the accused
persons therein were discharged by the competent Court vide
order dated 15.02.1997 and, despite full knowledge of the
earlier proceedings, the O.P. No.2 (complainant) instituted the
present complaint after an inordinate delay on substantially
identical allegations. Learned counsel further submits that the
dispute, if any, essentially relates to the validity of rival deeds of
gift and is predominantly civil in nature, for which no civil
action was initiated by the complainant (O.P. No.2) within the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66024 of 2018(5) dt.29-06-2026
4/8
prescribed period of limitation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the impugned order of cognizance cannot be sustained also
for the reason that one of the co-accused, namely, Ramdeo
Singh, against whom cognizance had been taken by the very
same impugned order dated 15.01.2001 arising out of the same
Complaint Case No.1605 (C) of 1999, had approached this
Court in Cr. Misc. No. 4360 of 2002 and a Coordinate Bench,
after considering the merits of the matter, quashed the entire
criminal proceeding so far as he was concerned. Learned
counsel, therefore, submits that the case of the present
petitioners stands on an identical footing and they are entitled to
the same relief on the principle of parity.
7. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2, while
supporting the impugned order, submits that the complaint
petition and the materials brought on record disclose the
commission of cognizable offences and the learned Magistrate
has rightly taken cognizance. It is submitted that the present
petition does not warrant interference in exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court.
8. Learned APP for the State fairly submits that the
allegations in the present case arise out of the same complaint
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66024 of 2018(5) dt.29-06-2026
5/8
case and the same order of cognizance which was the subject
matter of consideration before the Coordinate Bench of this
Court. He submits that appropriate order may be passed in view
of the earlier order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, as stated above.
9. I have considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and have carefully perused the materials
available on record including the judgment and order dated
25.08.2010 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.
Misc. No.4360 of 2002, arising out of the same Complaint Case
No.1605 (C) of 1999.
10. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the
very same transaction had earlier been made the subject matter
of Complaint Case No.157 (C) of 1985 instituted by Smt.
Lachhiya Devi herself against substantially the same set of
accused persons, wherein the learned Court concerned, vide
order dated 15.02.1997, discharged the accused persons.
According to the petitioners, despite the said discharge and
despite the complainant (O.P. No.2) having full knowledge of
the earlier proceedings, the present complaint came to be
instituted in the year 1999 and cognizance of the offence was
taken on 15.01.2021 on substantially identical allegations
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66024 of 2018(5) dt.29-06-2026
6/8
arising out of the same cause of action. The trial in this case is
pending for appearance of other accused persons.
11. It is pertinent to note that the Coordinate Bench of
this Court, upon an examination of the materials on record,
noticed that the allegations forming the basis of the present
complaint had earlier been the subject matter of Complaint Case
No.157 (C) of 1985 instituted by Smt. Lachhiya Devi herself,
which culminated in discharge of the accused persons on
15.02.1997. The Court further took note of the fact that the
present complainant was fully aware of the earlier proceedings
and yet instituted a fresh complaint after a considerable lapse of
time on substantially identical allegations. Taking into
consideration the attendant facts and circumstances, the
Coordinate Bench held that the continuance of the criminal
prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court and, accordingly, quashed the order of cognizance as well
as the criminal proceeding against the petitioner therein.
12. In the order dated 25.08.2010 rendered by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.4360 of 2002
arising out of the same Complaint Case No.1605 (C) of 1999, it
was held inter alia, as under:-
“It is not in dispute that in the
case, the alleged occurrence had taken place
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66024 of 2018(5) dt.29-06-2026
7/8
in the year 1984 and it is also not in dispute
that earlier complaint petition for the same
allegation against the petitioner was
rejected by the learned Magistrate. The
Court considers that there is no reason to
allow continuance of further proceeding in
the present complaint case.
Considering the facts and
circumstances as mentioned above, the
Court is of opinion that allowing prosecution
of petitioner on such allegation that too after
such a long period will amount to allowing
abuse of process of the Court. With a view to
prevent the abuse of process of the Court, it
is necessary to exercise inherent jurisdiction
in favour of the petitioner and as such, order
of cognizance dated 15.01.2001 passed by
Sri. P.N. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1605
(C) of 1999 is hereby set aside and the
petition stands allowed.”
13. Admittedly, the present prosecution emanates
from the very same complaint case, the impugned order of
cognizance is the very same order dated 15.01.2001, and the
allegations arise out of the identical transaction.
14. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that permitting the criminal prosecution
against the present petitioners to continue would be wholly
unjustified and would amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court.
15. Resultantly, the order dated 15.01.2001 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66024 of 2018(5) dt.29-06-2026
8/8
Case No.1605 (C) of 1999, so far as it relates to the present
petitioners, is set aside and the entire criminal proceeding
arising therefrom qua the petitioners herein, is quashed.
16. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application
is, accordingly, allowed.
17. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court
concerned forthwith for needful and compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.