Patna High Court
Nutan Verma vs The State Of Bihar on 13 July, 2026
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14209 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-429 Year-2017 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada
======================================================
Nutan Verma, D/o Navratan Prasad Verma, R/o Mohalla-Nawagadi, P.S.-
Civil Lines, District- Gaya, at present R/o Mohalla-Ramna Road
Pitamaheshwar, P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Maniharsh Bhardwaz, S/o Naresh Singh, Resident of Village-Nardiganj
Road, Ghadpar, P.S.-Nagar, District- Nawada
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Rina Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-07-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present quashing petition has been filed on
behalf of petitioner for quashing the order dated 11.09.2018
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in
Nawada Town P.S. Case No.429 of 2017, whereby and
whereunder the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate took
cognizance of the offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') as well as Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'N.I. Act).
3. As per FIR, Mr. Saurav Kumar Verma, son of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14209 of 2019 dt.13-07-2026
2/8
Dwarika Prasad Verma, who is the husband of this petitoner
along with petitioner, both resident of Nawagadi, P.S.-Civil
Lines, Distt.-Gaya approached the informant/O.P. No.2 for
finance of Rs.4,50,000/- to purchase of second-hand Scorpio
vehicle but, same was denied, saying that the informant/O.P.
No.2 is financing for new vehicle only. It is stated in FIR that
as the petitioner and her husband belongs to reputed family,
which was well within the knowledge of O.P. No.2, therefore,
a cash loan of Rs.4,50,000/- was given to them with
assurance that same would be returned within assured time
with interest of Rs.50,000/- i.e. total of Rs.5,00,000/-. After
completion of loan period, the husband of petitioner drawn a
cheque bearing No.20320 at Central Bank of India dated
17.03.2017
in favour of O.P. No.2, which upon presentation,
was dishonoured. Consequent upon, the present FIR was
lodged for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and
420 of the I.P.C. and 138 of the N.I. Act.
4. It is submitted by Mrs. Rina Sinha, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that no offence as
alleged was committed by this petitioner and she appears
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14209 of 2019 dt.13-07-2026
3/8
implicated only being wife of the main co-accused namely,
Saurav Kumar Verma. In support of her submission, it is
argued by learned counsel that the cheque in issue was
drawn exclusively by the husband of petitioner for sum of
Rs. 5 lakhs in favour of O. P. No. 2. It is pointed out that
as she was implicated with present crime in question only
being wife, otherwise, no cogent material is available against
her.
5. It is further argued by learned counsel that
when the cheque was dishonoured, a legal notice was also
sent by O.P. No.2, which was sent exclusively to her
husband without alleging or demanding any money from this
petitioner. It is submitted that as no demand was made
through legal notice from this petitioner and as no cheque
was drawn by this petitioner, the implication of this
petitioner as co-accused with present crime in question is the
abuse of the process of law. It is also submitted that same
also appears not convincing in view of legal reports of
Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14209 of 2019 dt.13-07-2026
4/8
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Maharastra and Anrs. [(2021) 19 SCC 401].
6. Arguing further, it is submitted by learned
counsel that the order taking cognizance dated 11.09.2018
suggest on its face that initially the cognizance was taken
only against the husband of petitioner but, as this petitioner
was named in FIR and when she went to obtain the certified
copy of the order, her name was added in order-sheet by
way of mischief caused by office staff. It is submitted that
petitioner was living separately from her husband namely,
Saurav Kumar Verma since 2017 for which FIR was lodged
in the year 2018 which was registered as Civil Lines P.S.
Case No.97 of 2018 (Annexure-2). It is submitted that since
2017, the petitioner is living separately with her husband.
7. Learned APP while opposing the present
quashing petition could not disputed the aforesaid
submissions.
8. Despite service of notice, the O.P. No.2 failed
to join the present proceeding.
9. It would be apposite to reproduce para-102 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14209 of 2019 dt.13-07-2026
5/8
the Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra), which is as under:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14209 of 2019 dt.13-07-2026
6/8a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14209 of 2019 dt.13-07-2026
7/8institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge”.
10. Taking note of the submissions, as advanced
by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also
taking note of the documents as relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the cheuqe in
issue was issued by the husband of the petitioner namely,
Saurav Kumar Verma under his exclusive signature (page 17
of the petition). It also transpires from the legal notice dated
27.03.2017 as sent by O.P. No.2 that no demand was raised
from petitioner. It also transpires that there is matrimonial
discord between the parties for which, FIR was lodged in the
year 2018 suggesting that they are living separately due to
their matrimonial differences. All these documents are of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14209 of 2019 dt.13-07-2026
8/8
unimpeachable qualities, which are sufficient to suggest, that
no case for the offences punishable under Sections 406,
420 of the I.P.C. as well as Section 138 of the N.I. Act as
alleged appears made against this petitioner.
11. Hence, by taking guiding notes of guideline
nos. (1), (3) and (7) of Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra), the
order taking cognizance dated 11.09.2018 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in Nawada Town
P.S. Case No.429 of 2017 qua above-named petitioner is
hereby quashed/set aside.
12. The application stands allowed.
13. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated
to the concerned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 14.07.2026 Transmission Date 14.07.2026
