Patna High Court
Kumar Shivam Shekhar @ Shivam ShekharversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that the FIR and charge‑sheet disclose cognizable offences and the petition does not fall within any category for quashing, therefore the application is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Kumar Shivam Shekhar, filed a petition seeking quash of the order of cognizance dated 11 July 2024 and the charge‑sheet in a case arising from a complaint that he had participated in assault, intimidation and theft on 25 March 2021. The petitioner argued that the dispute was essentially civil, that witnesses did not corroborate the prosecution, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in S.N. Vijayalakshmi. The State and the informant opposed the quash, contending that the FIR specifically alleged the petitioner’s presence and active participation, satisfying the elements of the offences under Sections 452, 341, 323, 504, 354, 379/34 IPC and Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The High Court, applying the principles laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure, Indian Oil Corp. v. NEPC and Bhajan Lal, held that the FIR and charge‑sheet disclose cognizable offences and the case does not fall within any exception for quashing. Consequently, the court found the application premature and without merit and dismissed it.
Issues considered
- Whether the criminal proceeding should be quashed on the ground that the dispute is essentially civil in nature
- Whether the FIR and charge‑sheet disclose sufficient prima facie evidence of cognizable offences under the IPC and Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Whether the case falls within any of the exceptions enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for quashing criminal proceedings
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 37
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354, 379, 452, 504
Subjects
- quash of criminal proceeding
- cognizance
- FIR
- IPC offences
- Bhajan Lal doctrine
- civil vs criminal dispute
- inherent jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78278 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2021 Thana- DAUDNAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Kumar Shivam Shekhar @ Shivam Shekhar son of Late Sunil Paswan
Resident of Village- New Area Maulabag PO -Daudnagar PS- Daudnagar
District -Aurangabad Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Renu Lata W/o Vijay Kumar Prasad, R/o Mohalla-New Area, Maulabag,
Ward No.25,P.O and P.S.-Daudnagar, District-Aurangabad.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Muskan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramesh Chandra, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Mayank Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as the
informant.
2. That the present quashing application has
been filed for the following reliefs:–
i. For quashing the order of cognizance
dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Special Judge, Excise,
Aurangabad, arising out of Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 138 of
2021, by which cognizance has been taken for the offences
under Sections 452, 341, 323, 504, 354, 379/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act, 2016, against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78278 of 2024 dt.08-01-2026
2/6
ii. Also for quashing the charge sheet vide
No. 504 of 2023 submitted by the investigating officer.
3. Prosecution story is that, on 25.03.2021 at
about 10:30 P.M at night, the informant was present at her house
when the accused persons, arrived there and abused her in
obscene and filthy language. It is alleged that the accused
persons thereafter assaulted the informant, causing her physical
injuries, and also criminally intimidated her with dire
consequences. The prosecution further alleges that during the
said occurrence, the accused persons removed articles/cash
belonging to the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
petitioner submitted that this case is filed due to animosity
between the parties and they are agnates and related to each
other. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
during investigation none of the witnesses have supported or
corroborated the prosecution case, yet the investigating agency
mechanically submitted the charge sheet and the learned court
below took cognizance without application of judicial mind.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. N.
Vijayalakshmi & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2025
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78278 of 2024 dt.08-01-2026
3/6
Live Law (SC) 758, wherein it has been held that criminal
proceedings deserve to be quashed when the dispute is
predominantly civil in nature and the element of criminality is
absent.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently
opposed the prayer for quashing and supported the impugned
order of cognizance.
7. Learned counsel for the informant submitted
that the materials collected during investigation clearly establish
the presence and active participation of the petitioner at the
place of occurrence. The FIR contains specific and categorical
allegations that the petitioner was not a mere bystander but was
very much present at the spot and had acted in concert with the
co-accused persons in furtherance of their common intention. It
was further contended that the role attributed to the petitioner is
specific and overt, and not omnibus in nature. The allegation
regarding his presence at the place of occurrence, coupled with
his participation in the incident, prima facie satisfies the
essential ingredients of the offences alleged.
8. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions and perused the materials available on record
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78278 of 2024 dt.08-01-2026
4/6
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6
SCC 821, has authoritatively held that while exercising inherent
jurisdiction, the High Court must proceed on the assumption
that the allegations made in the FIR are true and should not
conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the probative value of the
evidence.
10. In the present case, a plain reading of the FIR
and the materials collected during investigation clearly disclose
specific allegations of house trespass, assault, criminal
intimidation, and theft, which prima facie attract the offences
alleged. The presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence
and his alleged participation has been specifically asserted.
11. The contention that the dispute is civil in
nature cannot, by itself, be a ground for quashing the criminal
proceeding. It is well settled that civil liability and criminal
culpability may coexist. In Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC
India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that merely because a dispute has a civil flavor does not
mean that criminal proceedings should be interdicted if the
allegations disclose the ingredients of a criminal offence.
12. This Court further finds that the reliance
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78278 of 2024 dt.08-01-2026
5/6
placed upon S. N. Vijayalakshmi (supra) is misplaced. The said
judgment applies to cases where the criminal proceedings are
found to be purely civil in disguise and bereft of any criminal
intent. In the present case, however, the allegations disclose
overt acts, use of criminal force, and removal of property, which
cannot be said to be devoid of criminality at this stage.
13. The parameters for quashing criminal
proceedings, as laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, are well settled. This Court finds that
the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional
categories enumerated therein, as the FIR and charge-sheet do
disclose the commission of cognizable offences and the
proceedings cannot be said to be manifestly mala fide or an
abuse of the process of law.
14. This Court also finds that in the submission
advanced on behalf of the State and the informant that the
petitioner was not a distant or incidental figure but was
specifically named as being present at the place of occurrence
and having actively participated in the alleged incident. The FIR
attributes a clear and direct role to the petitioner, and the case
diary materials prima facie support the assertion of his presence
at the spot. At this stage, the Court cannot accept the plea of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78278 of 2024 dt.08-01-2026
6/6
false implication or absence of the petitioner.
15. It is also a settled principle that at the stage of
cognizance, the Magistrate is only required to ascertain whether
sufficient ground exists for proceeding and not whether the case
will ultimately result in conviction. This Court does not find any
perversity, patent illegality, or non-application of mind in the
impugned order warranting interference.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussions and
settled legal principles, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the present application is premature and devoid of merit.
17. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 19.01.2026
Transmission Date 19.01.2026
Checking your session…