Patna High Court
RAJNISH KUMAR @ RAJNISH KR. SINHAversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The High Court held that it cannot interfere with the magistrate’s order taking cognizance on the basis of defence material and dismissed the applications.
Summary
The petitioners filed applications seeking to quash a order dated 24 May 2018 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class‑cum‑Principal Magistrate, Madhepura, which had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 417, 420, 448, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code arising from a land‑pond dispute. The complainant alleged that the petitioners had illegally interfered with a pond situated on land he claimed to have purchased in 2002 and subsequently registered in 2016. The petitioners contended that the dispute was purely civil and that no criminal case could proceed, urging the court to consider their defence material at the stage of cognizance. The State and the second opposite party opposed the petitioners’ prayer. The Court observed that defence material cannot be entertained at the stage of taking cognizance and that it is not within its jurisdiction to set aside the magistrate’s order on that basis. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications, granting the petitioners liberty to raise all grounds at the charge‑framing stage.
Issues considered
- Can a High Court quash a magistrate’s order taking cognizance of offences on the ground that the matter is a civil dispute?
- Whether defence material can be considered by the High Court at the stage of taking cognizance?
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the magistrate’s order of cognizance?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 417, 420, 448, 504, 506
Subjects
- civil dispute
- criminal cognizance
- quash order
- Indian Penal Code
- jurisdiction
- preliminary hearing
- defence material
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86302 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-641 Year-2017 Thana- MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE
District- Madhepura
======================================================
SHAMBHU KUMAR @ SHAMBHU KUMAR ROY Son of Sri Sitaram Roy
Resident of Village - Shankarpura, P.S.- Hasanpur, Distt - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Vijayeshwar Prasad Singh Son of Late Motishwar Prasad Singh Resident of
Village - Alamnagar, P.S.- Alamnagar, Distt - Madhepura.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 78215 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-641 Year-2017 Thana- MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE
District- Madhepura
======================================================
RAJNISH KUMAR @ RAJNISH KR. SINHA Son of Sri Digambar Prasad
Sinha Resident of Village-Chandipur, P.S.-Warsaliganj, District-Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Rajnish Kumar Singh S/O Late Vijayeshwar Prasad Singh R/O-Alamnagar,
PS-Alamnagar, District-Madhepura
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 86302 of 2019)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Mahasweta Chatterjee, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Shantanu Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr.Avinash Kumar , Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 78215 of 2019)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr.Avinash Kumar , Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
7 27-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present applications have been filed for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86302 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
2/3
quashing the order dated 24.05.2018 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class-cum- Principal Magistrate, Madhepura in
Complaint Case No. 641/2017 by which learned Magistrate has
taken cognizance of offence under Sections 417, 420, 448, 504
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and one
another accused.
3. As per the prosecution case, complainant,
Vijyeshwar Prasad Singh, filed a complaint on November 8,
2017, against three accused persons regarding a pond situated
on specific land plots belonging to Prem Kumar Singh’s
ancestor. The complainant claimed he purchased the land in
2002, and after the original owner’s death, the land was sold and
registered in 2016 with a government lease created.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is
a case of civil dispute for which no criminal case can proceed
and therefore, the complainant needs to file a civil suit before
the concerned court below.
5. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2 have jointly opposed the prayer of the
petitioners.
6. From the submissions of the petitioners, it appears
that at the stage of cognizance, the petitioners want this Court to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86302 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
3/3
consider the defence material which cannot be considered by
this Court even at the stage of framing of charge.
7. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that this
Court should not interfere with the order taking cognizance on
the basis of the defence materials produced by the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed with
liberty to the petitioners to raise all the grounds at the stage of
framing of charge in accordance with law.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…