Patna High Court
Dev Kumar MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The High Court quashed the order of cognizance, holding that the complaint was procedurally defective and the proceeding amounted to an abuse of the criminal process.
Summary
The petitioners sought quashing of a Judicial Magistrate’s order of cognizance dated 08‑05‑2024 in a complaint alleging assault, robbery and related offences under IPC sections 323, 341, 379, 504 and 34. The complaint alleged that the petitioners attacked the complainant with lathis and stole a gold locket, but no medical report, injury certificate or documentary evidence of the alleged assault was produced. The petitioners argued that the complaint was filed mala fide, lacked the mandatory sworn affidavit and verification required by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., and therefore the magistrate should not have taken cognizance. The Court examined the absence of medical corroboration and the non‑compliance with verification requirements, finding the complaint prima facie weak and the proceeding an abuse of process. Relying on Priyanka Srivastava and the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the High Court held that the magistrate had acted without applying judicial mind and quashed the order of cognizance.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal complaint must be supported by a duly sworn affidavit and verification as mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.
- Whether the absence of medical or documentary evidence defeats the prima facie case of assault and robbery.
- Whether the Judicial Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without examining the sufficiency of the complaint, amounting to abuse of process.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 379, 504
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash order
- cognizance
- abuse of process
- verification affidavit
- IPC
- complaint
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72033 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2410 Year-2023 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE District-
Saran
======================================================
1. Dev Kumar Mishra Son of Sri Kapil Dev Mishra Village- Mohabbat Parsha,
Ps- Rivilganj, Dist- Saran at Chhapra Patna, Bihar.
2. Nitesh Mishra @ Rajesh Mishra son of Sri Dev Kumar Mishra Village-
Mohabbat Parsha, Ps- Rivilganj, Dist- Saran at Chhapra Patna, Bihar.
3. Risabh Mishra @ Rishyap Ritesh Son of Dev Kumar Mishra Village-
Mohabbat Parsha, Ps- Rivilganj, Dist- Saran at Chhapra Patna Bihar.
4. Shailesh Mishra @ Anish Kumar son of Sri Dev Kumar Mishra Village-
Mohabbat Parsha, Ps- Rivilganj, Dist- Saran at Chhapra Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Chaturbhuj Mishra son of Late Tuntun Mishra Village- Mohabbat Parsha,
Ps- Rivilganj, Dist- Saran at Chhapra Patna, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pravashankar Mishra, Advocate
For O.P. No.2 : Mr.Binod Murari Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Manoj Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State.
2. The present application has been preferred for
quashing the order of cognizance dated 08.05.2024, passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saran at Chapra, in
Complaint Case No. 2410 of 2023, whereby cognizance has
been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 341, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72033 of 2024 dt.08-01-2026
2/5
3. The prosecution case, as alleged in the
complaint, is that on 13.06.2023 while complainant was
ploughing his ancestral field, in the meantime, all of sudden
petitioners allegedly arrived, armed with lathi and danda and
started assaulting the complainant and snatched his gold locket.
It is further alleged that the complainant was saved by the
arrival of witnesses and thereafter took treatment at the Primary
Hospital Revelganj. It is also alleged that the police refused to
register his case, compelling him to file the present complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that
the present complaint case has been instituted with mala fide
intention and is a misuse of the criminal process. It is contended
that the complaint is not supported by a duly sworn affidavit, as
mandatorily required under the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v.
State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, which was
prescribed to prevent abuse of the criminal machinery. It is,
therefore, submitted that in absence of such affidavit and proper
verification, the initiation and continuation of the criminal
proceeding against the petitioners is unsustainable in law.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further
submits that though the complainant is alleged to have received
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72033 of 2024 dt.08-01-2026
3/5
medical treatment at a Primary Hospital, but no medical report,
injury certificate or any documentary material evidence has
been brought on record to substantiate such allegation, which
according to learned counsel, falsifies the prosecution version
and undermines the credibility of the present case.
6. It is further submitted that the assertion of the
complainant regarding having approached the police authorities
for registration of the information is not supported by any
documentary material, such as a written complaint or
acknowledgment. In absence of any such supporting material,
the said allegation remains unsubstantiated.
7. It is, therefore, finally contended that the learned
Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance without
examining whether the basic ingredients of the alleged offences
are prima facie made out and without scrutinizing the absence
of supporting material, thereby resulting in abuse of the process
of the Court.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant and the
State supported the impugned order and submitted that a prima
facie case is made out against the petitioners and, therefore, this
Court shall not interfere in the order of cognizance.
9. Having heard the submissions of the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72033 of 2024 dt.08-01-2026
4/5
counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on
record, it appears that the complainant has alleged assault and
has further stated that he received medical treatment at a
Primary Health Centre. However, despite such allegation, no
medical report, injury certificate or any contemporaneous
documentary evidence has been brought on record to
substantiate the claim of injuries or treatment. In the facts of the
present case, the absence of any medical corroboration
materially weakens the allegation of assault and creates serious
doubt regarding the prosecution version at the stage of taking
cognizance.
10. This Court further finds that the complaint is
neither supported by a duly sworn affidavit nor there is any
material to indicate due compliance of the procedural safeguards
meant to regulate invocation of the criminal process. The
aforesaid omission is not in conformity with the principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka
Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2015) 6
SCC 287, which requires strict adherence to verification
requirements to prevent abuse of the criminal machinery.
11. This Court is also guided by the principles
enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72033 of 2024 dt.08-01-2026
5/5
v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the
categories of cases warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction
have been delineated, including cases where the allegations do
not disclose the commission of any offence or where the
proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention.
12. The learned Magistrate, while passing the
impugned order, has not adverted to the absence of medical
corroboration or the lack of proper verification and has taken
cognizance without application of judicial mind.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that
continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners
would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
14. Accordingly, the present Cr. Miscellaneous is
allowed. The order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saran at Chapra, in Complaint
Case No. 2410 of 2023, taking cognizance of the offences
against the petitioners, is hereby quashed.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.01.2026
Transmission Date 20.01.2026
Checking your session…