Patna High Court
Kanhaiya Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67949 of 2023
Arising out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2019 Thana- HAYAGHAT District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Kanhaiya Singh, Son of Late Anup Lal Singh, Village Ghosrama Ps
Hayaghat District Darbhanga
2. Keshav Singh @ Magnu Singh, Son of Kanhaiya Singh Village Ghosrama
Ps Hayaghat District Darbhanga
3. Niranjan Singh @ Nanhe Singh, Son of Kanhaiya Singh Village Ghosrama
Ps Hayaghat District Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary, The Station House Officer, Hayaghat Police Sta-
tion, Address Not Known
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagnnath Singh, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Kumar Advocate
Mr. Padmanabh Kashyap, Advocate
Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s: Mrs. Pronoti Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-03-2026
Heard Mr. Jagnnath Singh, learned counsel for the pe-
titioners and Mrs. Pronoti Singh, learned Additional Public Prose-
cutor for the State.
2. Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated
17.08.2023
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga as well
as order dated 01.02.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Darbhanga in Hayaghat P.S. Case No. 41 of 2019 (Tr.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67949 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
2/5
No. 3691 of 2018) by which the petition filed by the petitioners
under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
3. The prosecution case is that on information the police
had reached the house of one Narayan Kumar Jha, S/o Ram Lal
Jha where it was informed that he was having land dispute with
one Kanhaiya Singh (Petitioner No. 1) and on the fateful day the
scuffle took place between the parties and when the informant
tried to appease the group of petitioners they started pushing them
and were not allowing the police force to proceed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that ad-
mittedly no injury was caused to anybody. Since, the petitioners
have been charged for committing offences under Section 353 of
the IPC which reads as under:-
“353. Assault or criminal force to
deter public servant from discharge of his
duty-Whoever assaults or uses criminal force
to any person being a public servant in the ex-
ecution of his duty as such public servant, or
with intent to prevent or deter that person
from discharging his duty as such public ser-
vant, or in consequence of anything done or
attempted to be done by such person to the
lawful discharge of his duty as such public
servant, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may ex-
tend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that it appears that in the course of scuffle between two groups
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67949 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
3/5
who were having history of land dispute and there is no allegation
of assault or abuse against them. Learned counsel for the petition-
ers has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of B.N. John vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. reported in AIR 2025 SC 759 and in the case of Kumar
Shankar Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. re-
ported in AIR 2025 SC 2571. The relevant paragraphs 14, 33 and
34 of the case of B.N. John (Supra) are as under:-
“14. Since, the appellant has been
charged for committing offences under Sections
186 and 353 of the IPC, it may be appropriate to
reproduce the same.
Section 186 of the IPC reads as follows:
“186. Obstructing_public servant in
discharge of public functions.-Whoever voluntar-
ily obstructs any public servant in the discharge
of his public functions, shall be punished with im-
prisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three months, or with fine which
may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 353 of the IPC reads as follows:
“353. Assault or criminal force to deter
public servant from discharge of his duty-Who-
ever assaults or uses criminal force to any person
being a public servant in the execution of his duty
as such public servant, or with intent to prevent
or deter that person from discharging his duty as
such public servant, or in consequence of any-
thing done or attempted to be done by such per-
son to the lawful discharge of his duty as such
public servant, shall be punished with imprison-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67949 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
4/5ment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
33. If “disturbance” has to be construed
as “assault” or “criminal force” without there be-
ing specific acts attributed to make such “distur-
bance” as “assault” or “criminal face” within the
scope of Section 353 of the IPC, it would amount
to abuse of the process of law. While “distur-
bance” could also be caused by use of criminal
force or assault, unless there are specific allega-
tions with specific acts to that effect, mere allega-
tion of “creating disturbance” cannot mean use of
“criminal force” or “assault” within the scope of
Section 353 of the IPC.
34. As noted and discussed above, noth-
ing was mentioned in the complaint/FIR of any
specific acts apart from alleging that the appel-
lant and his party were creating disturbance.
Nothing has been mentioned how disturbance was
created because of assault or use of criminal
force.”
6. Thus, the contents of the statements recorded later un-
der Section 161 of the CrPC clearly appears to be an afterthought
and the allegation of assault/attack was introduced later on, which
is inconsistent with the contents of the original FIR.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has
vehemently opposed the quashing of the order dated 17.08.2023
and 01.02.2023 and has submitted that all the ingredients of Sec-
tion 353 IPC are fulfilled in the present case.
8. In such view of the matter, the order dated 17.08.2023
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga as well as order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67949 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
5/5
dated 01.02.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
Darbhanga in Hayaghat P.S. Case No. 41 of 2019 (Tr. No. 3691 of
2018) by which the petition filed by the petitioners under Section
239 Cr.P.C. was rejected is quashed.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
(Ansul, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date Transmission Date
