Patna High Court
Nagendra Kumar Yadav @ Nagendra YadavversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The Court held that the magistrate had failed to apply a judicial mind and the investigation did not disclose a prima facie case, therefore the order taking cognizance and the ensuing criminal proceeding were quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the magistrate's order of taking cognizance of offences under the IPC arising from a complaint by the informant alleging assault and theft. The court examined whether the materials collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case and whether the proceeding amounted to an abuse of process. It found that the investigation lacked corroborative evidence, no recovery of the alleged stolen chain, and a key witness denied knowledge of the incident, indicating the case was motivated by political rivalry. The magistrate had taken cognizance in a perfunctory manner without applying a judicial mind. Applying the principles of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court concluded that the prosecution was mala fide and the proceeding should be halted. Consequently, the order of cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the magistrate's order taking cognizance can be set aside under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the materials on record disclose a prima facie case of the offences alleged.
- Whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 354A, 379, 504, 506, 509
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash order
- cognizance
- abuse of process
- prima facie case
- Indian Penal Code
- magistrate
- political rivalry
- mala fide prosecution
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9634 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2015 Thana- SABAUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Nagendra Kumar Yadav @ Nagendra Yadav, Son of Late Dwarika Prasad
Yadav, Resident of village Kurpat, P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Khushboo Goswami, Wife of Shambhu Kumar Goswami, Resident of
village Kurpat, P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Geeta Kumari Jha, Advocate
For the State : Smt. Anita Kumari, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Murlidhar Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
10 03-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and the learned APP for the
State.
2. The present application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the order dated
15.09.2015 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-X, Bhagalpur
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in connection with
Sabaur (Goradih) P.S. Case No.88 of 2015, wherein the learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 354A, 379, 504, 506 and 509 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner herein.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9634 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
2/11
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant
(O.P. No.2) alleged that on 08.05.2015 at about 6:30 P.M., while
she was proceeding towards the agricultural field along with her
sister-in-law (bhabhi), she found the petitioner allegedly
abusing her husband near the house of one Raj Kishore
Goswami. It is alleged that when the informant (O.P. No.2)
objected to such conduct, the present petitioner abused and
threatened her, forcibly snatched her gold chain, caught hold of
her hand, attempted to drag her towards the nearby bushes and
also assaulted her by slapping her. Thereafter, the informant
(O.P. No.2) managed to escape form there and narrated the
incident to her family members. Subsequently, the informant
(O.P. No.2) submitted a written complaint resulting into
registering of the F.I.R. bearing Sabaur (Goradih) P.S. Case
No.88 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 341,
323, 354A, 379, 504, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
Upon institution of the aforesaid F.I.R., the matter was
investigated and, after completion of investigation, the police
submitted charge-sheet dated 26.05.2015 bearing C.S. No.92 of
2015 against the petitioner under Section 504 of the Indian
Penal Code.
4. However, the learned Magistrate noted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9634 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
3/11
charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner under Sections
341, 354A, 379, 504, 506 & 509 of the Indian Penal Code and
vide the impugned order dated 15.09.2015 passed in connection
with Sabour (Goradih) P.S. Case No.88 of 2015, took
cognizance of the said offences under Sections 341, 323, 354A,
379, 504, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code against the
petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order taking cognizance
and the continuation of the criminal proceeding arising
therefrom, the petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of
the impugned order as well as the entire criminal proceeding.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order taking cognizance has been passed in a
mechanical manner without proper application of judicial mind
to the materials collected during investigation. He submits that
the allegations made in the F.I.R. are false, motivated and have
been levelled only to harass the petitioner on account of local
political rivalry, as the husband of the O.P. No.2 (informant) was
allegedly contesting the election for the post of Pramukh.
Learned counsel further submits that the criminal prosecution
has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive and is,
therefore, liable to be quashed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9634 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
4/11
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the materials collected during investigation do not disclose
the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner. He
submits that no recovery of the alleged stolen gold chain has
been effected, there is no independent witness supporting the
prosecution version and the statements recorded during
investigation do not furnish sufficient material to proceed
against the petitioner. It is submitted that even if the allegations
are accepted on their face value, the essential ingredients of the
offences alleged are not made out against the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the learned
Magistrate failed to examine whether the materials placed
before the him disclosed sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the petitioner and proceeded to take cognizance in a
routine and perfunctory manner. It is submitted that the
impugned order does not reflect due application of mind to the
case diary or the evidence collected during investigation.
Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that permitting the
criminal prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of
the process of the Court, warranting interference by this Court
in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9634 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
5/11
O.P. No.2 submits that the F.I.R. as well as the materials
collected during investigation disclose the commission of
cognizable offences against the petitioner. It is contended that
the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance upon being
satisfied with the materials available on record and that the
issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact,
which can only be adjudicated during trial. However, he
concedes that the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner
only under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code.
9. Learned APP for the State submits that at the stage
of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate is only required to
ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out and not to
undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence. He further
submits that appropriate order may be passed in the interest of
justice.
10. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties and have carefully perused the
pleadings, the impugned order, and the materials brought on
record. The issue which falls for consideration before this Court
is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case
and the materials collected during investigation, the
continuation of the criminal proceeding and the impugned order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9634 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
6/11
taking cognizance warrant interference in exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.
11. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would
be apposite to notice the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. The power under the
said provision is of an extraordinary nature and is required to be
exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in
exceptional cases to prevent abuse of the process of any Court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. At the stage of
considering a prayer for quashing, the Court is not expected to
undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or
adjudicate upon the correctness of the allegations. The only
enquiry is whether the uncontroverted allegations contained in
the F.I.R. and the materials collected during investigation, taken
at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of any
offence and justify the continuation of the criminal prosecution.
If the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not
constitute the ingredients of the alleged offences, or where the
prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fides or amounts to
an abuse of the process of the Court, the inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 may justifiably be invoked. Conversely,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9634 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
7/11
where the materials disclose a prima facie case giving rise to
disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence,
such matters are ordinarily left to be adjudicated during trial.
12. Upon a careful perusal of the materials collected
during the investigation, including the case diary, this Court
finds that although serious allegations have been levelled
against the petitioner, the same do not find adequate
corroboration from the materials collected during investigation.
The Investigating Officer has not brought on record any
convincing material to substantiate the allegations of snatching
of the gold chain or outraging the modesty of the O.P. No.2.
Significantly, no recovery of the alleged stolen chain has been
effected during investigation, nor is there any material
indicating that the investigation yielded any objective evidence
in support of the allegations.
13. This Court further finds that one of the material
witnesses, namely Raj Kishore Goswami, near whose house the
alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place, has not
supported the prosecution version during investigation. On the
contrary, he categorically stated before the Investigating Officer
that he had no knowledge of the alleged occurrence. He further
disclosed that the present case had been instituted on account of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9634 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
8/11
an earlier monetary dispute involving the husband of the O.P.
No.2 (informant) and certain local persons. The statement of
such an independent witness, who was expected to have
knowledge of the occurrence if it had actually taken place at the
alleged place of occurrence, materially weakens the prosecution
case at its very inception. The other independent witnesses also
do not support the allegations made in the F.I.R.
14. It further appears from the case diary that despite
the absence of any substantial corroborative material and
notwithstanding the statements recorded during investigation,
the Investigating Officer proceeded to submit charge-sheet and
the learned Magistrate took cognizance without adverting to
these significant aspects of the matter. The impugned order does
not reflect any independent application of judicial mind to the
quality of the materials collected during investigation or the
apparent inconsistencies emerging therefrom. The order merely
proceeds on the basis of submission of the police report without
recording satisfaction as to the existence of sufficient grounds
for proceeding against the petitioner.
15. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
materials collected during investigation, even if accepted at their
face value, do not disclose sufficient grounds to justify the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9634 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
9/11
continuation of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner.
Rather, the case diary itself gives rise to a reasonable doubt
regarding the genesis of the prosecution and lends support to the
plea that the criminal proceeding has been initiated on account
of prior animosity. In such circumstances, compelling the
petitioner, to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial would
amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and would not
serve the ends of justice, thereby warranting interference by this
Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C.
16. Moreover, the facts of the present case, when
tested on the touchstone of the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan
Lal &Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, unmistakably
bring the case within the ambit of the categories warranting
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The materials
collected during investigation fail to prima facie substantiate the
allegations levelled against the petitioner and, on the contrary,
disclose circumstances creating serious doubt regarding the very
genesis of the prosecution. The statement of the material
witness, coupled with the absence of any corroborative evidence
in support of the allegations, renders the continuation of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9634 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
10/11
criminal proceeding wholly unjustified. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the present prosecution appears to be
manifestly attended with mala fide and has been instituted with
an ulterior motive arising out of previous enmity and political
rivalry. Consequently, the present case squarely falls within
Categories illustratively enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra),
namely, that the uncontroverted allegations and the materials
collected do not disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence justifying continuation of the prosecution, the evidence
collected fails to make out a case against the petitioner, and the
criminal proceeding appears to have been maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. Therefore,
continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an
abuse of the process of the Court.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate failed to
examine whether the materials collected during investigation
disclosed sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
petitioner and proceeded to take cognizance in a routine manner
without due application of judicial mind. The continuation of
the criminal proceeding, despite the absence of prima facie
material and in the face of the infirmities noticed hereinabove,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9634 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
11/11
would result in unnecessary harassment to the petitioner and
would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. This
Court is, therefore, satisfied that the present case is a fit one for
exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the
process of law.
18. Resultantly, the order dated 15.09.2015 passed by
the learned A.C.J.M.-X, Bhagalpur, in connection with Sabaur
(Goradih) P.S. Case No.88 of 2015, whereby cognizance has
been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,
354A, 379, 504, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code against
the petitioner, is hereby set aside and the entire criminal
proceeding arising out of the aforesaid police case, so far as it
relates to the present petitioner, also stands quashed.
19. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application
is, accordingly, allowed.
20. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.
21. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court
concerned forthwith for needful and compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.