Patna High Court
Jay Prakash SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The complaint was malicious, lacked a prima facie case and the proceeding amounted to abuse of process; therefore the order taking cognizance was set aside and the proceedings were quashed.
Summary
The petitioners – Jay Prakash Sharma, his son Osho and Binod Kumar Chaubey – were charged under IPC sections 323, 341, 379 and 34 following a complaint by former security guard Ambika Rai alleging assault, theft and intimidation. The petitioners contended that the complaint was filed in retaliation for their removal from posts at NIT Patna and amounted to malicious prosecution. The High Court examined whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and whether the proceeding constituted an abuse of process under the inherent powers of the court under CrPC Section 482. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and related precedents, the Court held that the allegations were baseless, motivated by personal grudge, and did not constitute an offence. Consequently, the application for quashing was allowed, the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 05‑04‑2024 was set aside and the complaint and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint under Sections 323, 341, 379 and 34 of the IPC discloses a prima facie case against the petitioners.
- Whether the criminal proceeding amounts to malicious prosecution and abuse of process warranting interference under Section 482 of the CrPC.
- Whether the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offences.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 155(2), 156(1), 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 379
Subjects
- malicious prosecution
- quash of criminal proceeding
- Section 482 CrPC
- abuse of process
- Indian Penal Code
- security guard dispute
- retaliation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89090 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8593 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Jay Prakash Sharma, S/o Late Prem Chandra Sharma, R/o Quarter No. 03,
Ground Floor, Type-IV, NIT Patna Campus, P.O. and P.S. - Pirbahore,
District - Patna.
2. Osho, S/o Jay Prakash Sharma, R/o Quarter No. 03, Ground Floor, Type-IV,
NIT Patna Campus, P.O. and P.S. - Pirbahore, District - Patna. A/P Working
as Software Engineer in Centelon at Bangluru.
3. Binod Kumar Chaubey, S/o Late Haribansh Chaubey, R/o New Mainpura,
P.O. and P.S. - Danapur, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Ambika Rai, Son of Late Ram Baran Rai, R/o Village- Ganjpur, P.O. and
P.S. - Athmangola, District – Patna, at present residing at National Institute
of Technology Patna Campus, P.S. - Pirbahore, District - Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Adv.
Mr. Mritunjay Harsh, Adv.
For the O.P. No. : Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 12-02-2026
Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, the learned Senior Advocate,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89090 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
2/14
assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri and Mritunjay Harsh, the
learned Advocates for the petitioners and Mr. Gopal Govind
Mishra, the learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party
No. 2. The State has been represented by Mr. Ram Priya Sharan
Singh, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
2. This is an application seeking quashing of the
order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the Court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-X, Patna in connection
with Complaint Case No. 8593 (C) of 2023, whereby
cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the
offences under Sections 323, 341, 379 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.) as also seeking
quashing of all consequent proceedings initiated pursuant
thereto.
3. The facts giving rise to the present application is
to the effect that one complaint was filed alleging therein that
the complainant/opposite party No. 2 was an ex-serviceman and
working as a Security Guard at National Institute of Technology,
Patna (hereinafter referred to as the N.I.T., Patna) under
petitioner No. 1, namely, Jay Prakash Sharma. It has been
alleged that the petitioner No. 1 used to take domestic help from
the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and has cut down a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89090 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
3/14
Sheesham tree within the campus of N.I.T., Patna and when the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 refused to help him, the
petitioner No. 1 got aggrieved and started playing mischief in
the attendance register and also threatened him to deposit one
month salary with him if he wants to continue in job. It has
further been alleged that the petitioner No. 1 had earlier got
ousted three Supervisors and three Security Guards from their
jobs. It has next been alleged that on 05.09.2023, while the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 was going to his village with
Rs. 60,000/- in cash, the accused persons along with other
unknown persons snatched away the said cash and also the gold
chain and threatened him of dire consequences.
4. On such complaint made by the
complainant/opposite party No. 2, the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-X, Patna took cognizance of the offences
under Sections 323, 341, 379 and 34 of the I.P.C. against the
petitioners vide order dated 05.04.2024.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order taking
cognizance, Mr. Y.V. Giri, the learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the petitioner
No. 1 is working as Assistant Registrar (General
Administration)-Cum-Security Incharge at N.I.T., Patna and he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89090 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
4/14
also happens to be an ex-serviceman. It has been submitted that
the petitioner No. 2, namely, Osho, is the son of petitioner No. 1
and he is a Software Engineer and has completed his B.Tech
Degree from I.I.T., Dhanbad and is presently working in a
Multinational Company at Bengaluru, whereas the petitioner
No. 3, namely, Binod Kumar Chaubey, is working as Security
Guard at N.I.T., Patna and only because the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 thought that he was helping
the petitioner No. 1, he was made accused in the present case,
although the allegations leveled in the complaint petition are
general and omnibus in nature and nothing specific has been
alleged against him.
6. Mr. Y.V. Giri, the learned Senior Advocate
submits that the present case is a fit example of malicious
prosecution as just prior to the filing of the present complaint, it
was petitioner No. 1, who had lodged an F.I.R. against the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 and others on 04.09.2023,
being Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 646 of 2023, for the offences
under Sections 385 and 34 of the I.P.C. It has been submitted
that the petitioner No. 1 in the said F.I.R. had made a complaint
that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and other four
Security Guards, who were working at N.I.T., Patna, had been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89090 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
5/14
threatening him and his family members of dire consequences
and he had stated about his apprehension that he might be
abducted and the said Security Guards also use to call outsiders
in the Campus. It has also been submitted that when the
petitioner No. 1 objected to the same, he was threatened.
7. It has further been submitted that prior to the
institution of the said F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner No. 1, the
Registrar of the N.I.T., Patna had also requested the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Patna for deployment of police
personnel in the Campus for the purpose of restructuring of the
position of the Security Guards working on contract basis. The
Registrar had raised a suspicion that the Security Guards would
indulge in unruly behaviour and may create law and order
situation inside the Campus, if their contracts will not be
renewed. It has been submitted that it was on account of their
bad performance and behaviour that the complainant/opposite
party No. 2 and others were removed from the post of Security
Guard at N.I.T., Patna on 04.09.2023 and their removal was
through a Committee of N.I.T., Patna on the ground of their
non-performance appraisal, however the complainant/opposite
party No. 2 was under an impression that it was the petitioner
No. 1, who, being the Security Incharge of N.I.T., Patna, was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89090 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
6/14
instrumental in getting the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and
others removed from their jobs.
8. It has further been submitted on behalf of the
petitioners that one of the complaint witnesses, namely, Braj
Bihari Saw along with one Kaushal Shah had instituted a
complaint before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner,
Ministry of Labour and Employment at Maurya Lok, Patna
against the Management of N.I.T., Patna for their enhancement
of salary and regularization of service; although they were
working on contract basis and notice for the same was sent to
the Institute on 28.06.2023 for participation in negotiation by
the Management of the N.I.T., Patna on the complaint made by
the Security Guards.
9. It has, thus, been submitted that because of the
serious prejudice and grudge against the petitioner No. 1, being
the Security Incharge of N.I.T., Patna, the complainant/opposite
party No. 2 had the impression that it was petitioner No. 1 who
got him removed from the job by instigating the Director of the
Institute and, therefore, as a revenge and in retaliation to his
removal, that the present complaint was filed. It has been
submitted that the implication of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are so
absurd that the petitioner No. 2, who is the son of petitioner No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89090 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
7/14
1, was not even present at the alleged date of occurrence and
was, in fact, in Bengaluru working as a Software Engineer in a
Multinational Company, whereas the petitioner No. 3 happens to
be a Security Guard himself and he has no role to play in the
removal of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and others and
has only been implicated because he was very close to petitioner
No. 1.
10. Mr. Y.V. Giri, the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioners, has, thus, submitted that the
present case is an example of malicious prosecution and in view
of the settled law as decided in the case of State of Haryana and
Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 ,
the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law, which
apparently is a vexatious and retaliatory action by the
complainant/informant with false and concocted story.
11. Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, the learned counsel
appearing for the complainant/opposite party No. 2, submits that
there is enough evidence on record for taking cognizance
against the petitioners. It has been submitted that the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 has supported his averments
made in the complaint petition on solemn affirmation and even
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89090 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
8/14
the enquiry witnesses examined by the Court have supported the
case of the prosecution. It has further been submitted that for
taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate has to be only
satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused persons and, therefore, there is no illegality in the
order impugned through the present petition. In support of his
contention, Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the
complainant/opposite party No. 2, has placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered in the case of Jagdish Ram Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Anr., reported in AIR 2004 SC 1734.
12. It has further been submitted on behalf of the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 that the law is well settled
with regard to the role of the Magistrate, who applies his mind
and on being satisfied that the allegation leveled against the
accused constitutes an offence, passed an order and, therefore,
there is no illegality in the impugned order. In support of the
aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed upon the
judgment in the case of Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of
Uttaranchal & Anr., reported in AIR 20096 SC (Supp) 803.
13. It has further been pointed out on behalf of the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 that he has already filed a
petition before the Registrar, N.I.T., Patna, stating therein the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89090 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
9/14
unlawful act of petitioner No. 1 against him and others on
11.08.203 and 16.08.2023 respectively and in retaliation to the
aforesaid complaint, the aforesaid Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 646
of 2023 has been instituted. It has been submitted that the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 had tried to institute an F.I.R.
on 05.09.2023. However, the same was not accepted and then
an application was made to the Superintendent of Police, Patna
through Speed-Post, but no F.I.R. has been registered and hence,
the complainant/opposite party No. 2 had to file the present
complaint on 21.09.2023.
14. The attention of this Court has also been drawn
by the learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party No. 2
towards some photographs, which goes on to show that the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 was forced to work as
labourer in the house of the petitioner No. 1 in the construction
work, despite the fact that the complainant/opposite party No. 2
has retired from the post of Army Subedar from the Indian
Armed Force.
15. Further, referring to the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hira Lal & Ors. Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors., reported in 2009 (5) SCALE 418 , it has been
submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has fixed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89090 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
10/14
parameters for interference with the criminal proceedings by the
High Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
16. It has, thus, been submitted that there is no
illegality in the order taking cognizance and the present
application preferred by the petitioners is fit to be dismissed.
17. Having heard the parties and taking into
account the respective pleadings, i.e., the quashing application
and the counter affidavit filed by the complainant/opposite party
No. 2, it is evident that the petitioner No. 1 was working as
Incharge Security Officer at N.I.T., Patna, while the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 and the enquiry witnesses
were the Security Personnel working in the same Institute and
they were removed on 04.09.2023 by the Management of the
N.I.T., Patna and immediately thereafter, the present complaint
has been filed with an allegation of acts committed by the
petitioners said to have been committed on 05.09.2023. It is
apparent from the face of it that the present complaint has been
filed by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 with the support
of those Security Personnel, who stood as enquiry witnesses to
such complaint, and are the persons who too were removed by
the Management of the N.I.T., Patna and since the petitioner No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89090 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
11/14
1 was the Security Incharge of N.I.T., Patna, he was thought to
be instrumental in their removal and, therefore, the present
complaint has been lodged.
18. This Court is conscious of various judicial
pronouncements including the one rendered by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch.
Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra), wherein it has been observed as
follows in paragraph 108, which reads as hereunder:
“108. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and
of the principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extra-ordinary power under
Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the
First Information Report or the complaint,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89090 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
12/14
even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R.
do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89090 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
13/14
or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
19. From the above, it is clear that the present case
falls in the category of malicious prosecution and apparently in
retaliation to the removal of the complainant/opposite party No.
2 and other similar persons (who even are enquiry witnesses),
the present case has been lodged against the petitioners and,
therefore, continuation of the same would amount to abuse of
the process of law.
20. Thus, in view of the facts afore-stated, the
present application with respect to the petitioners, above-named,
stands allowed and the impugned order dated 05.04.2024,
referred to above, with respect to them, is set aside.
Consequently, the complaint, bearing Complaint Case No. 8593
(C) of 2023, and all consequent proceedings initiated pursuant
thereto with respect to the petitioners, above-named, stand
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89090 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
14/14
quashed.
21. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed off.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 06.02.2026
Uploading Date 12.02.2026
Transmission Date 12.02.2026
Checking your session…