Patna High Court
Manish Kumar Shrivastava @ Manish Shrivastava @ Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of bihar, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
A writ petition that combines multiple disparate reliefs is not maintainable and must be dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, a family of six members, filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking a multitude of reliefs including certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and habeas corpus against various state officials and courts, alleging malicious prosecution, illegal detention, and violation of natural justice. They claimed that several criminal, maintenance, and execution proceedings against them were false, abusive, and initiated to harass them. The Court examined whether a single writ petition could entertain such disparate reliefs spanning different jurisdictions and remedies. Relying on precedents, the Court held that a writ petition containing multiple, varied reliefs is not maintainable as a single proceeding. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the petitioners to approach appropriate forums for each grievance.
Issues considered
- Whether a single writ petition seeking multiple disparate remedies (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus) is maintainable under writ jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- certiorari
- mandamus
- prohibition
- habeas corpus
- abuse of process
- illegal detention
- compensation
- criminal procedure
- natural justice
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3060 of 2025
======================================================
1. Manish Kumar Shrivastava @ Manish Shrivastava @ Manish Kumar Son of
Umesh Nandan Prasad Resident of village- Kailashpuri, ward no. 45, Ps-
Dumara, Dist- Sitamarhi At P/A- Musapur, Ps- Samastipur (M), Dist-
Samastipur, Bihar, (Wrong Address given as -Krishnapuri, West of Indra
Nagar, Ps- Samastipur (M), Dist- Samastipur
2. Umesh Nandan Nirala @ Umesh Nandan Prasad son of Vishnudev Narayan
Verma Resident of village- Kailashpuri, ward no. 45, Ps- Dumara, Dist-
Sitamarhi At P/A- Musapur, Ps- Samastipur (M), Dist- Samastipur, Bihar,
(Wrong Address given as -Krishnapuri, West of Indra Nagar, Ps- Samastipur
(M), Dist- Samastipur
3. Renu Devi @ Renu Shrivastava Wife of Umesh Nandan Prasad Resident of
village- Kailashpuri, ward no. 45, Ps- Dumara, Dist- Sitamarhi At P/A-
Musapur, Ps- Samastipur (M), Dist- Samastipur, Bihar, (Wrong Address
given as -Krishnapuri, West of Indra Nagar, Ps- Samastipur (M), Dist-
Samastipur
4. Rajnish Shrivastava @ Rajnish Kumar shrivastava Son of Umesh Nandan
Prasad Resident of village- Kailashpuri, ward no. 45, Ps- Dumara, Dist-
Sitamarhi At P/A- Musapur, Ps- Samastipur (M), Dist- Samastipur, Bihar,
(Wrong Address given as -Krishnapuri, West of Indra Nagar, Ps- Samastipur
(M), Dist- Samastipur
5. Rohit Shrivastava @ Rohit Kumar Shrivastava Son of Umesh Nandan
Prasad Resident of village- Kailashpuri, ward no. 45, Ps- Dumara, Dist-
Sitamarhi At P/A- Musapur, Ps- Samastipur (M), Dist- Samastipur, Bihar,
(Wrong Address given as -Krishnapuri, West of Indra Nagar, Ps- Samastipur
(M), Dist- Samastipur
6. Lovely Kumari Daughter of Umesh Nandan prasad Resident of village-
Kailashpuri, ward no. 45, Ps- Dumara, Dist- Sitamarhi At P/A- Musapur, Ps-
Samastipur (M), Dist- Samastipur, Bihar, (Wrong Address given as
-Krishnapuri, West of Indra Nagar, Ps- Samastipur (M), Dist- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Home dept. Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar Patna
4. The District Magistrate, Samastipur
5. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur
6. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, (SDM), Samastipur
7. The Officer-in-charge, Muffasil Ps, Dist- Samastipur
8. The Presiding officer, family Court, Samastipur (in Official capacity, for
having mechanically passed an ex-parte order dated 07-12-2016, in cr.pc,
125 case no. 29 of 2015 and initiating execution Case no. 36 of 2017 without
considering Petitioner's Submissions, thereby showing bias and violation of
Natural Justice)
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3060 of 2025(3) dt.12-02-2026
2/6
9. The Presiding officer, ACJM II, Samastipur (in Official capacity, for having
mechanically passed monetary relief order dated 27-01-2023, in DV, act,
Case no. 03 of 2021, without considering Petitioner's Submissions, thereby
showing bias and violation of Natural Justice)
10. Priti Raj wife of Avdhesh Sinha @ Avdhesh Kumar Sinha The Secretary,
Aditi Samaj Sewa Sansthan, Official Address of NGO Punjabi, Colony, Gali
No. 01, Samastipur At Present Resident of village- Shambhupatti,
(Chandopatti), Ps- Samastipur (M), Dist- Samastipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Roona, AC to GP-7
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GP-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 12-02-2026 Vide order dated 27.01.2026, an explanation was
called for from the official concerned for not pointing out the
defect about wrong mentioning of the provisions in the present
writ petition. The concerned ASO of Criminal Stamp Reporting
Section has submitted his explanation wherein he has submitted
that inadvertently he missed the defect and he tenders his
unconditional apology and undertakes that he would do his duty
with more care and promptness and such mistake would not
occur in future.
2. Explanation is accepted with a warning to remain
careful in future, otherwise stern action will be taken.
3. The present petition has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders or direction/directions in the
nature of Certiorari for quashing the entire
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3060 of 2025(3) dt.12-02-2026
3/6
proceedings by exercising powers under
sections 482 of the Cr.P.C of (a) Samastipur
(M) P.S. Case No.-219/2013, (b) Maintenance
Case No-29/2015 (ex parte order dated 07-
12-2016), (C) Execution Case Ne-36/2017,
and consequential orders including order
dated, 17-04-2025 (d) D.V Case No.-3/2021
pending before the Learned District Court,
Samastipur and its subordinate/companion
Courts, at Samastipur Court, as the same are
manifestly, false, malicious and an abuse of
the process of law, having been instituted
maliciously to harass the petitioners.
State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal, 1992. Supp
(1) SCC 335 (guidelines on quashing where
proceedings are malicious or abuse of
process).
(ii),(a) For issuance of appropriate Writs,
Order or direction/s in the mature of
Mandamus commanding the state-respondents
and their instrumentalities not to execute or
enforce the Ex Parte maintenance onder
dated-07-12-2016 passed in M.Case No.-
29/2015, since the same was obtained by
fraud, suppression of material facts, and
without proper Service of notice to the present
petitioner No.-01
A.V. Papayya Sastry V. Govt. of A.P., (2007) 4
SCC 221 (fraud vitiates all acts)
(ii),(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing
the respondent State to ensure no further
harassment of the petitioners in connection
with the said disputes and also directing
registration of F.I.R on petitioner's complaints
regarding illegal custody, defamation and
harassment.
(ii),(c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to compensate the petitioners for
his unlawful arrest, detention and malicious
prosecution
(iii), (a) For issuance of an appropriate
writ/s, order/s or direction/s in the nature of
Prohibition restraining the Learned Courts
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3060 of 2025(3) dt.12-02-2026
4/6
below from proceeding further in the
aforesaid criminal/maintenance cases against
the petitioner during the pendency of the
present writ application, in order to protect
the petitioner from irreparable loss,
harassment, and multiplicity of proceedings.
East India Commercial Co. Ltd. V. Collector
of Customs, AIR 1962 SC 1893 (Prohibition
lies where proceedings are without
Jurisdiction or in abuse of process).
(iii),(b) Issue a writ of prohibition, restraining
the learned Courts below from entertaining or
proceeding further in the aforesaid cases, as
their Continuance would amount to
harassment and denial of justice, relying upon
the ratio in Pepsi Foods Ltd. V. Special
Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749.
(iv),(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/s
order/s or direction/s in the nature of Habeas
Corpus (limited purpose post release)
declaring that the arrest and detention of the
present petitioner No.-01 (1) from 16-05-2013
to 22-07-2013 in connection with false
implication at Mufassil P.S., Samastipur, and
(2) from 17-04-2025 to 16-05-2025 pursuant
to execution of the ex-parte maintenance
order, were wholly illegal unconstitutional,
void arbitrary and violative Articles 21 and
22 of the Constitution of India, and
consequently directing the State to
compensate the petitioner for his repeated
illegal custody and custodial torture.
Nilabati Behera V. State of Orissa, (1993) 2
SCC 746 (Compensation for illegal custody)
Batra V. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC 61
(Habeas Corpus maintainable even post-
release to examine legality of detention)
(iv),(b) Issue a limited writ of Habeas Corpus
declaring the detention of the petitioner
during execution proceedings as unlawful,
and violence of Article 21, in view of the
binding precedent in Sunil Batra v/s-Delhi
Administration (1979)
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3060 of 2025(3) dt.12-02-2026
5/6
(iv), (c) To declare the arrest and detention of
the petitioner No.-01 in the year 2013 and
unlawful and mollified, and to grant
appropriate compensation for illegal
incarceration and mental harassment caused.
(iv), (d) Direct the Respondents to pay
compensation for illegal custody, mental,
trauma, and reputational loss.
(iv), (e) Award of Compensation of Rs.-25
Lacs (Rupees 25 Lakhs only for unlawful
detention and mental agony suffered by the
petitioners as per Rudal Sah Vs. State of
Bihar [(1983) 4 SCC 141)]
(iv), (f) Direct inquiry into the circumstances
of detention and award just compensation to
the petitioner No.-01 for unlawful detention
and torture.
(v) For issuance of an appropriate order/s or
direction/s under Section 482 Cr.P.C to secure
the ends of Justice by quashing all false and
malicious criminal proceedings initiated at
the behest of respondent No.-10 and her
associates, and to prevent further misuse of
criminal law machinery against the petitioner
No.-01 and his family.
Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 (inherent
powers to prevent abuse of process and
secure ends of Justice).
(vi) For issuance of such other an appropriate
writ/s, order/s or direction/s as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the present case,
including;
(vi),(a) Protection of the petitioner, who has
been falsely projected as the "(so-called
husband)" of respondent No.-10, and his
family members from any further false
implication and harassment.
(vi),(b)Directing departmental/disciplinary
action against the erring police officials and
other authorities who colluded with private
respondents in illegally arresting and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3060 of 2025(3) dt.12-02-2026
6/6
detaining the petitioner.
(vi),(c)Awarding exemplary costs and suitable
compensation with interest for the repeated
malicious prosecution and custodial
harassment suffered by the present petitioner
No.-1
Rajesh Sharma V. State of U.P., (2017) 8
SCC 821 (guidelines against misuse of
criminal law to harass "husband and his
relatives" applicable here as" So- called
husband"),
Nilabati Behera V. State of Orissa, (1993) 2
SCC 746 (compensation for illegal
custody).”
4. Apparently, the present writ petition has been filed
seeking a number of reliefs of different nature. From the relief
sought by the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners are also
aggrieved by the some judicial orders. At the same time, writ of
hebeas corpus has also been incorporated in the relief portion.
For such multifarious type of reliefs, single writ petition is not
maintainable and, hence, the same is dismissed.
5. However, the petitioners are at liberty to have
recourse of law before the appropriate forum in appropriate
proceeding.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
U
Checking your session…