Patna High Court
Om Prakash Sharma @ Om PrakashversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
A second criminal prosecution on the same facts after earlier proceedings have been quashed is barred, and the order taking cognizance is quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Om Prakash Sharma, a shop owner, was accused by his former tenant Rekha Devi of theft of goods worth about Rs. 10 lakh after a dispute over rent and locks. The complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 379 IPC in 2017, leading to cognizance by a Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner argued that the same facts had already resulted in an FIR and criminal proceedings which were later quashed by this Court in 2023, making the new complaint a second prosecution. The Court held that initiating fresh criminal proceedings on identical facts after a prior case has been set aside violates the principle against double prosecution and constitutes abuse of process under Section 300 CrPC and the doctrine in Bhajan Lal. Consequently, the application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the order taking cognizance was allowed, and the 2018 order and all ensuing proceedings were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether a fresh criminal complaint can be entertained when identical facts have already been the subject of a quashed criminal proceeding.
- Whether the order taking cognizance under Section 379 IPC is liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the ground of abuse of process.
- Whether the principle embodied in Section 300 CrPC and the doctrine in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal applies to bar a second prosecution on the same cause of action.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 239, 300, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 379
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- double jeopardy
- abuse of process
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 300 CrPC
- landlord-tenant dispute
- quash of criminal proceeding
- repeat prosecution
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9571 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3016 Year-2017 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Om Prakash Sharma @ Om Prakash Son of Ramdhyan Sharma Resident of
A-131 AG colony, main road, P.S.-Shastri Nagar, Distt.-Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rekha Devi Wife of Pradeep Gupta Resident of Phulwari Chunauti Kuan,
P.S.-Phulwarisharif, Distt.-Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 02-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel for
the Opposite Party No. 2/complainant.
2. The present application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the
order dated 09.02.2018, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, whereby cognizance has been
taken for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, against the petitioner in Complaint Case No.
3016(C) of 2017, instituted by Opposite Party No. 2, namely
Rekha Kumari.
3. Notice was issued to Opposite Party No.
2/complainant, which was duly served and she has appeared
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9571 of 2024 dt.02-02-2026
2/6
before this Court.
4. The case of the Opposite Party No. 2, in brief, is
that in the year 2015 she had taken a shop situated at A.G.
Colony, Patna, on rent from the petitioner after allegedly paying
a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs on two different dates and advance rent
of Rs. 24,000/-. It is alleged that after carrying out false ceiling
and rack work and keeping garments worth about Rs. 10 lakhs
in the said shop, a dispute arose between the parties, whereafter
both the parties put their own locks on the shop. It is further
alleged that the petitioner subsequently broke open the lock and
committed theft of the articles kept therein. On the alleged
inaction of the police, the present complaint was filed on
07.08.2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
entire complaint case is false, concocted and an abuse of the
process of law. It is submitted that the complainant herself has
stated in the complaint petition that the police did not register
her case, whereas Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 355 of 2015 had
already been registered on the basis of information given by the
Opposite Party No. 2 for the same set of facts and cause of
action.
6. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9571 of 2024 dt.02-02-2026
3/6
case, the petitioner had filed a discharge application under
Section 239 Cr.P.C. which was rejected vide order dated
17.03.2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna.
The said order was challenged before this Court in Cr. Misc. No.
28532 of 2018, and this Court, vide order dated 04.05.2023,
allowed the application and quashed the proceedings. Despite
the same, the complainant has again initiated the present
complaint case on identical facts, which is impermissible in law.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature,
arising out of a landlord-tenant relationship. The petitioner is the
undisputed owner of the shop and the criminal colour has been
deliberately given to the dispute only to harass the petitioner. It
is further contended that the complaint petition does not disclose
any material to prima-facie constitute the offence of theft under
Section 379 IPC.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Opposite Party No. 2 as well as learned APP for the State have
opposed the present application and supported the impugned
order.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that
the petitioner, without any prior information or consent of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9571 of 2024 dt.02-02-2026
4/6
complainant, unlawfully removed the articles kept in the shop
and thereby committed theft, for which the present complaint
case has been instituted.
10. Having heard the submissions advanced by the
parties and upon careful perusal of the materials available on
record, it emerges that the allegations levelled in the present
complaint case are founded on the very same cause of action
and identical set of facts which had earlier culminated in
registration of an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings. It
further appears that the earlier proceedings, arising out of the
same allegations, have already been set aside by this Court. The
institution of the present complaint, therefore, amounts to a
second prosecution on the same facts, which is impermissible in
law.
11. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it is
manifest that for the same cause of action and identical
allegations, an FIR had already been lodged earlier, which
ultimately stood quashed by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
The present complaint case is nothing but a second attempt to
re-agitate the same allegations, which is clearly barred in
criminal jurisprudence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9571 of 2024 dt.02-02-2026
5/6
12. Though, Section 300 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, in its strict sense, applies to cases of prior
conviction or acquittal, the principle underlying the said
provision, namely that no person should be vexed twice for the
same offence on the same set of facts, is a well-recognised facet
of criminal jurisprudence. Once criminal proceedings arising out
of identical allegations have already been set aside by this
Court, permitting the complainant to initiate a fresh complaint
on the very same cause of action would defeat the object of
Section 300 CrPC. and would amount to a clear abuse of the
process of law
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana
vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has categorically held
that criminal proceedings can be quashed where the allegations
do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the
proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention
and instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused.
14. In the present case, initiation of a second criminal
proceeding on the same facts, after failure in earlier
proceedings, clearly falls within the categories laid down in
Bhajan Lal (supra). Allowing such prosecution to continue
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9571 of 2024 dt.02-02-2026
6/6
would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and result in
harassment of the petitioner.
15. It is a settled principle of law that for the same set
of facts and cause of action, a person cannot be subjected to
repeated criminal prosecution, particularly when the earlier
proceedings have already been adjudicated upon by a competent
court.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled legal
position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
impugned order taking cognizance cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law.
17. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
The order dated 09.02.2018, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 3016(C) of
2017, and the entire criminal proceeding arising there from, is
hereby quashed.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 16.01.2026
Uploading Date 03.02.2026
Transmission Date 03.02.2026
Checking your session…