Patna High Court

ASHOK YADAVversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 10 March 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: PRAVEEN KUMAR

Holding

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no ground to interfere with the order under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as the criminal aspects can be adjudicated in the trial.

Summary

The petitioners, four Yadav relatives, filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash an order dated 17 July 2023 that set aside the cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a land‑dispute criminal case (Case No. 171 of 2022). They argued that the dispute was essentially a civil matter over title and possession and that the FIR was a counter‑version, alleging the prosecution were the aggressors. The State opposed, pointing out that the injury report showed a simple injury caused by a sharp cutting weapon, corroborated by the FIR, indicating a criminal act. The High Court examined whether interference under Section 482 was warranted, noting that a criminal offence had indeed been committed and that the petitioners’ defence could be fully adjudicated during the trial. Concluding that there was no occasion to interfere at this stage, the Court dismissed the petition. The order thus remains in force and the trial will proceed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground of abuse of process
Whether the land‑dispute aspects render the matter civil and outside the jurisdiction of criminal courts
Whether the petitioners’ defence can be decided in the regular trial without judicial interference

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482

Subjects

Section 482
Criminal Procedure Code
quash order
land dispute
criminal trial
High Court interference
injury report

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8176 of 2024
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2022 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
           1.     ASHOK YADAV SON OF DEVNANDAN YADAV R/O-MISKAR TOLA,
                  WARD NO. 14 P.S.-CHANPATIA, DISTT.-WEST CHAMPARAN AT
                  BETTIAH
           2.    RANJIT YADAV SON OF RATAN YADAV R/O-MISKAR TOLA, WARD
                 NO. 14 P.S.-CHANPATIA, DISTT.-WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH
           3.    RAMLCHANDRA YADAV SON OF LATE JAGDEO YADAV R/O-
                 MISKAR TOLA, WARD NO. 14 P.S.-CHANPATIA, DISTT.-WEST
                 CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH
           4.     AKHILESHWAR KUMAR YADAV @ AKLESH YADAV SON OF LATE
                  GAJAR YADAV R/O-MISKAR TOLA, WARD NO. 14 P.S.-CHANPATIA,
                  DISTT.-WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH
                                                                ... ... Petitioners
                                          Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                          ... ... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioners    :        Mr. Ajeet Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party :        Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   10-03-2026                   Heard the parties.

                               2. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

                   has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the order

                   dated 17.07.2023 passed by learned Additional District and

                   Sessions Judge Vth, West Champaran, Bettiah in Cr. Rev. No.

                   105 of 2022, whereby the cognizance taken by the learned Chief

                   Judicial Magistrate in Chanpatia P.S. Case No. 171 of 2022 vide

                   order dated 09.06.2022 has been set aside with a direction to

                   pass a reasoned order afresh.

                               3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8176 of 2024(2) dt.10-03-2026
                                                      2/2




                    parties are agnates and there is a dispute over title and

                    possession over a piece of land, the land being claimed by the

                    petitioner’s side. There is counter version of the FIR and the

                    prosecution side were the aggressors.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently

                    opposed the application and has submitted that from the

                    impugned order itself it would reflect that the injury report of

                    the injured Baldeo Kumar Yadav, which is available at

                    paragraph 25 of the case diary, although being simple in nature,

                    but has been caused by a sharp cutting weapon, which is

                    corroborated by the allegation as made in the FIR.

                                 5. Considering the fact that a criminal act has been

                    committed although due to land dispute between the parties

                    resulting into injures being sustained by the injured person and

                    the case of the petitioners primarily rests upon their defence,

                    which can be adjudicated in the trial itself, this Court does not

                    find any occasion to interfere with the impugned order, at this

                    stage.

                                 6. This application is dismissed.



                                               (Praveen Kumar, J)
Pawan/-

U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…