Patna High Court
Prakash Chandra Dixit And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 7 August, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42950 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2378 Year-2013 Thana- SIWAN COMPLAINT CASE District-
Siwan
======================================================
1. Prakash Chandra Dixit, S/o Ravindra Dixit
2. Ramanuj Dixit, S/o Ramesh Dixit
3. Anup Dixit, S/o Prakash Chandra Dixit
4. Amlesh Dubey, S/o late Harishankar Dubey
5. Babalu Dubey, S/o late Anirudh Dubey
6. Rani Devi @ Anju Dixit, W/o Ramanuj Dixit
7. Priyanka Devi @ Saloni Dixit, W/o Prabhat Dixit
8. Shail Devi, W/o late Ramesh Dixit
9. Harish Pandey, S/o Markandey Pandey
All are R/o village- Kilpur, P.S.- Nautan, District- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bhuneshwar Dixit, S/o late Bhrigunnath Dixit, R/o village- Kilpur, P.S.-
Nautan, District- Siwan
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate
Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Advocate
Ms. Ayushi Gupra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 07-08-2026
The petitioners, eight in numbers have assailed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42950 of 2016 dt.07-08-2026
2/12
order dated 20.06.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st
Class, Siwan in Complaint Case No. 2378 of 2013, whereby
finding prima facie case under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 354A
of the Indian Penal Code, processes have been issued against the
petitioners for their appearance to face trial.
2. A complaint case was filed on 20.09.2013 in the Court
of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, alleging inter
alia therein that all the accused persons as named, forcibly
entered the land of complainant on 19.09.2013 and with an
intention to dispossess him, started vandalizing the property and
on being resisted, the accused persons who were variously
armed, assaulted the complainant causing injury and when his
family members came to save, the accused persons assaulted
them on different parts of their body while another accused
person snatched mangalsutra and earrings made of gold from his
wife and daughter and one of the accused grabbed his wife. The
complainant and his family members approached the local
police station but seeing not action on their part, they filed the
complaint application in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate.
3. Upon such an application, the Complaint Case No.
2378 of 2013 was instituted and having recorded the solemn
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42950 of 2016 dt.07-08-2026
3/12
affirmation of complainant on 14.02.2013 as well as statement
of enquiry witnesses on 16.04.2014, the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Siwan, finding prima facie case under
Sections 147, 148, 323, 354A of the IPC, issued processes
against the petitioners (accused persons) for their appearance to
face trial.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the
instant complaint case, in which petitioners have been made
accused, is in fact a counter-blast to the complaint case lodged
by the petitioner No. 1 i.e., Prakash Chandra Dixit vide
Complaint Case No. 2361 of 2013, which were also filed on
20.09.2013
in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Siwan, implicating the complainant herein and his family
members for the occurrence which alleged to have been taken
place on 19.09.2013. He also submits that for the said
occurrence taking place on 19.09.2013, the complainant of the
present case namely Bhuneshwar Dixit had also lodged an FIR
vide Nautan P.S. Case No. 142 of 2013 dated 20.09.2013 for the
offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 447, 354 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code, implicating all the petitioners
herein. He also points out that the allegations as leveled in the
present complaint case i.e., Annexure-1, the FIR as contained in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42950 of 2016 dt.07-08-2026
4/12
Annexure-4, though are in connection with the same occurrence
which alleged to have taken place on 19.09.2013 but, in fact,
attributes different kind of allegations against the petitioners in
the instant complaint. The allegations are general and omnibus
in nature against all the accused persons with the specific role of
molestation committed upon the wife of complainant as
mentioned in present complaint case whereas in the FIR no such
allegations for the same date of occurrence have been alleged
against the accused persons. He also states that for the same
occurrence, two proceedings have been instituted against the
petitioners by the complainant, one by filing the instant
complaint case and another by filing the police case vide Nautan
P.S. Case No. 142 of 2013 and as such, this conduct of
complainant shows his ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance
on the petitioners by filing series of false cases, just in order to
harass, humiliate and persecute them only for exerting their
rightful claim which is unacceptable to the complainant.
5. He submits that learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Siwan, without properly considering the allegations, the
documents and the nature of the dispute between the parties
took cognizance of the offences in the most mechanical manner
and the order taking cognizance is non-speaking one which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42950 of 2016 dt.07-08-2026
5/12
reflects non-application of judicial mind by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Siwan.
6. On being noticed, the complainant appeared through
his learned Advocate who contested the arguments so advanced
on behalf of the petitioners by submitting that the petitioners are
hell-bent to disturb the peaceful living of the complainant and
his family member and by resorting to illegal activities, they are
in the habit of causing disturbances on the land of complainant.
He also submits that the learned Court below has properly
examined the solemn affirmation of the complainant and
statement of enquiry witnesses and thereafter, having perused
the averments made in the complaint application and the
documents so brought on record, rightly took cognizance of
offences against the accused persons. He also supports the filing
of separate FIR for the same occurrence which alleged to have
taken place on 20.09.2013. He submits that accused persons
were variously armed and they assaulted almost each family
members of the complainant. Thus, while concluding his
submission, he argues that the accused persons must be
relegated to the learned Trial Court to face the trial and the
defence so taken by them could only be examined by the
learned Trial Court after examining the witnesses adduced on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42950 of 2016 dt.07-08-2026
6/12
behalf of all the parties.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
supports the aforesaid contention of the complainant and
submits that the accused persons have committed crime against
the society that is why they are not entitled to any relief from
this Hon’ble Court rather they must face the trial and their
defence could only be examined by the learned Trial Court.
8. Having heard rival submissions made on behalf of the
parties and perused the documents so brought on record
including the solemn affirmation, the statement of enquiry
witnesses, the FIR (Annexure-5), the present complaint case and
the case filed by the petitioners as contained in Annexure-4, it is
evident that petitioners and the complainant are on litigating
terms. In the instant complaint case, the allegations have been
attributed to the various accused persons assigning different
roles of crime, but in support of such allegation of assault on all
the family members of the complainant, no injury report has
been brought on record nor any medical papers showing the
treatments given to such persons alleged to have been injured
on account of the such assault given by the petitioners.
9. The wife of complainant was examined as enquiry
witness and in her statement on oath she has also narrated the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42950 of 2016 dt.07-08-2026
7/12
same story as leveled in the complaint application except the
factum of her molestation at the hands of the petitioners. Being
victim, she could have been best person to elaborate the same
but she has not uttered a word that any person tried to outrage
her modesty.
10. Perusal of the Annexure- 4, which is a Complaint
Case No. 2361 of 2013 filed by petitioner No. 1 on 20.09.2013
in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Siwan,
exposes the true nature of the instant complaint case. The
complaint case so filed by petitioner No. 1, is numbered as 2361
of 2013 whereas the present complainant case is numbered as
2378 of 2013 which indisputably shows that petitioner No. 1 has
filed complaint case earlier than the present complaint case and
in the complaint case so filed by petitioner no. 1, the present
complainant and his sons and family members are named
accused persons. Perusal of Annexure-4 i.e., complaint case so
filed by petitioner No. 1 truly manifest that for construction over
a piece of land both the parties are at loggerheads and are
disputing their respective right and possession over the aforesaid
piece of land, which is the genesis for the acrimonious
relationship between the parties.
11. Further perusal of Annexure- 5, which is an FIR
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42950 of 2016 dt.07-08-2026
8/12
lodged by the present complainant on 20.09.2013 as Nautan P.S.
Case No. 142 of 2013 implicating the petitioners for the same
occurrence alleged to have taken place on 20.09.2013, with
respect to the dispute over construction of houses on the piece
of land over which both the parties are claiming right and
possession. In the aforesaid FIR, no allegation whatsoever has
been made for outraging the modesty of any woman much less
the complainant’s wife. Furthermore, no injury report or any
other medical evidence has been placed on record in support of
such an allegation.
12. When a query was put to learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 with respect to the allegation
of outraging modesty and injury as alleged to have been caused
on the bodies of the family members of the complainant, he
could not dispute the fact that there appear to be no injury which
is evident from the absence of any injury report nor is there any
kind of allegation in the FIR, regarding outraging modesty of
any woman of the complaint’s family.
13. In the absence of any specific allegation with respect
to offences as alleged under Section 354A of the IPC, it is
difficult to uphold the order taking cognizance under Section
354A of the IPC against the accused persons.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42950 of 2016 dt.07-08-2026
9/12
14. Section 354A of the IPC deals with the sexual
harassment of a women and punishment for sexual harassment.
Sub-section (1) thereof provides that a man committing any of
the following acts-
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome
and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks,
shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
Section 354A (2) provides that any man who commits the
offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-
section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
15. In view of the aforesaid legal parameters, the
allegations so made in the present complaint case does not
satisfy any of the ingredients as mentioned in the Section
354(A) of the IPC to constitute an offence under the aforesaid
sections. Thus, the order of learned Magistrate taking
cognizance of offences under Section 354A seems to be a result
of non-application of judicial mind which is unsustainable in the
eyes of law.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42950 of 2016 dt.07-08-2026
10/12
16. Besides the allegations as leveled in the complaint
case and the nature of such allegations, if viewed, in totality
keeping in mind the complaint case filed earlier by the petitioner
No. 1 and the FIR lodged by the present complainant for the
same occurrence, leads to an irresistible conclusion that the
parties are at loggerheads for a dispute over a piece of land and
for that purpose with ulterior motive they are filing cases against
each other and, in fact, the present case seems to be counter-
blast to the case lodged earlier in time by the petitioner No. 1
and as such the instant criminal prosecution appears to be
tainted with mala fide where the prosecution has been launched
with the mal-intention, brings it into the category of malicious
prosecution which is impermissible in the eyes of law.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on numerous occasions
has considered the power of the High Court to quash criminal
proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the scope
thereof, for exercise of such powers. The most celebrated case
in this regard is State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal : (1992)
Suppl. 1 SCC 335 which is recognized as “locus callicus” on
the issues of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The scope of the power of the High Court to be exercised under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for quashing criminal prosecution
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42950 of 2016 dt.07-08-2026
11/12
have been well enunciated in plethora of judicial
pronouncements as evident from State of Karnataka v. L.
Muniswamy : (1977) 2 SCC 699, State of A.P v. Aravapally
Venkanna : (2009) 13 SCC 443, Neeharika Infrastructure (P)
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401, Sachin
Garg v. State of U.P : (2024) SCC OnLine SC 82 and Vishal
Noble Singh v. State of U.P. : (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1680
besides the Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra).
18. Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, the
instant criminal proceeding, if allowed to be continued, would
amount to be an abuse of the process of the Court wherein the
parties are fighting each other for establishing their rights and
claiming their possession over the piece of land, could not be
allowed to set the judicial proceedings in motion for their
personal gains and as such, in the ends of justice, such
proceedings ought not be allowed to continue.
19. Ex Consequenti, the criminal proceedings initiated
vide order dated 20.06.2015 taking cognizance of offences
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 354A of the IPC in Complaint
Case No. 2378 of 2013, is hereby quashed and set aside qua the
petitioners.
20. Thus, the present application is allowed in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42950 of 2016 dt.07-08-2026
12/12
aforesaid terms.
21. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall
also be deemed to have been disposed of.
22. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Rakesh/Prakash-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 17.07.2026 Uploading Date 07.08.2026 Transmission Date 07.08.2026
