Patna High Court
Narendra Deo vs The State Of Bihar on 30 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13668 of 2023
Arising out of PS. Case No.-609 Year-2020 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Narendra Deo, Son of Late Bijendra Deo, R/o Mohalla- Uttari Koeri Tola,
Hilsa, P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda
2. Suraj Prasad @ Suraj Prasad Sinha, Son of Rajendra Prasad Sinha, R/o
Mohalla- Uttari Koeri Tola, Hilsa, P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda
3. Shaila Kumari, Wife of Narendra Deo, R/o Mohalla- Uttari Koeri Tola,
Hilsa, P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda
4. Sunita Devi, Wife of Suraj Prasad @ Suraj Prasad Sinha, R/o Mohalla-
Uttari Koeri Tola, Hilsa, P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda
5. Piyush Raj, Son of Sri Narendra Deo, R/o Mohalla- Uttari Koeri Tola, Hilsa,
P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ravindra Nath, Son of Late Raghavendra Deo, R/o Mohalla- Uttari Koeri
Tola, Hilsa, P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
For the OP No. 2 : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastav, Advocate
Mr. Satyendra Bhatnagar, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Raushan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Sinha, Advocate
Mrs. Anjali Mehta, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13668 of 2023 dt.30-04-2026
2/7
Date : 30-04-2026
Heard Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Sanjay
Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioners seeks quashing of the order of cognizance
dated 11.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-I, Hilsa, Nalanda in Hilsa P.S. Case No. 609 of 2020
(G.R. No. 3072 of 2020) by which the cognizance was taken for
the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 337, 338 and
506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that the informant, Opposite
Party No. 2, Ravindra Nath lodged information with the allegation
that on 28.11.2020 at 3.00 P.M. his daughter Arti Kumari was
walking on the roof then Manish Kumar (not petitioner) and Suraj
Kumar (not petitioner) were snapping her photographs from
cellphone. When his daughter resisted, they threatened that they
would enter into their house and molest her. On 02.12.2020, his
son namely Deepak Kumar asked Manish Kumar (not petitioner)
as to why he has snapped the photographs of his sister. Manish
Kumar responded badly. After sometime, Manish Kumar (not
petitioner), Suraj Kumar @ Jackey (not petitioner), Yogendra
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13668 of 2023 dt.30-04-2026
3/7
Prasad (not petitioner), Balkrishna Mehta (not petitioner), Jairam
Verma (not petitioner), Jai Kishan Verma (not petitioner), Suraj
Prasad (Petitioner No. 2), Narendra Deo, (Petitioner No. 1), Piyush
Raj (Petitioner No. 5) entered his house and started misbehaviour
with his daughter. Manish Kumar and Suraj Kuma (not petitioners)
disrobed his daughter and assaulted her. On his opposition,
Narendra Deo (Petitioner No. 1) and Suraj Kumar (Petitioner No.
2) ordered to assault him and then all the accused persons started
assaulting them. Then Piyush Raj asked to drag them outside the
house. Thereafter the accused persons brought them out and
Deepak Kumar was assaulted by petitioners and others. Thereafter,
Sunita Devi (Petitioner No. 4) and Shaila Kumari (Petitioner No.
3) assaulted him and his daughter. The informant further alleged
that his left finger was broken and Sunita Devi assaulted him with
bricks and Suraj Kumar and Rajendra Prasad had pressed his neck.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
initially the allegation was against the person Manish Kumar and
Suraj Kumar who were the neigbhours and the dispute erupted
from there. The informant in order to settle multiple scores in one
case also dragged the petitioners who are his agnates. He further
submits that the police had submitted final report against the
petitioners by not sending them up for trial but learned Additional
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13668 of 2023 dt.30-04-2026
4/7
Chief Judicial Magistrate differing with the same took cognizance.
In earlier dispute, Miscellaneous Case No. 142 MP/2020 was filed
by Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 before the learned Sub-
divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda for initiating
proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C.
5. The Opposite Party No. 2 has also filed Hilsa P.S.
Case No. 616 of 2020 vide Annexure-3. It clearly shows that Maya
Devi wife of Ram Bachan Prasad who were the neigbours had
lodged a case with specific case against Manish Kumar. The case
also contains a reference to Hilsa P.S. Case No. 241 of 2016
instituted for the offences under Section 354B and other allied
sections in which Manish Kumar was a witness.
6. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed
the quashing of the order dated 11.01.2023.
7. The records would reveal that there is a case and
counter-case between the parties and clearly there is a prior land
dispute and animosity between the parties. The dispute seems to be
with another set of persons.
8. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the
same principle in the case of Salib alias Shalu alias Salim vs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13668 of 2023 dt.30-04-2026
5/7
State of Uttar Pradedh and Others. reported in (2023) 20 SCC
194. The relevant paragraph 26 reads as under:-
“26. At this stage, we would like
to observe something important. Whenever
an accused comes before the Court invoking
either the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed
essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances the Court owes a duty to look
into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc. then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very
well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that the averments made in the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose
the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just
enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the
Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the
lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13668 of 2023 dt.30-04-2026
6/7is empowered to take into account the
overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as
the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on
hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered
over a period of time. It is in the background
of such circumstances the registration of
multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby
attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance
out of private or personal grudge as
alleged.”
9. The scope of consideration under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has been expanded now. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
in view of the fact that the complaint and FIR are sometimes
lodged with afterthought and with due deliberation the Court is
empowered and entitled to look at the attending circumstances and
exercise the powers of quashing even after a prima facie case
looks like being made out.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case as well as the fact there is prior animosity and case and
counter-case of land dispute between the parties, the order of
cognizance dated 11.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-I, Hilsa, Nalanda in Hilsa P.S. Case No. 609 of
2020 (G.R. No. 3072 of 2020) by which the cognizance was taken
for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 337, 338 and
506/34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed so far as the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13668 of 2023 dt.30-04-2026
7/7
petitioners are concerned. The prosecution against all others except
the petitioners shall be continued expeditiously.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
(Ansul, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date Transmission Date
[ad_1]
Source link
