ADVERTISEMENT
Patna High Court
Sabiha Khanam @ Sabiha Khatoon vs The State Of Bihar on 29 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12669 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-679 Year-2022 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Sabiha Khanam @ Sabiha Khatoon Wife of Late Md. Allam Ahmed Khan
Resident of Mohalla- Benta Ward No. 43, P.S.- Laheriasarai, Distt.-
Darbhanga
2. Shah Sujah Aziz Alam Khan @ Prince Son of Late Md. Allam Ahmad Khan
Resident of Mohalla- Benta Ward No. 43, P.S.- Laheriasarai, Distt.-
Darbhanga
3. Aamir Aziz Alam Khan @ Minti Son of Md.Allam Ahmad Khan Resident of
Mohalla- Benta Ward No. 43, P.S.- Laheriasarai, Distt.- Darbhanga
4. Shabbir Ahmed Khan @ Bhura @ Shabbir Khan Son of Late Ashfaq Ahmad
Khan Resident of Mohalla- Benta Ward No. 43, P.S.- Laheriasarai, Distt.-
Darbhanga
5. Mukhtar Ahmad Khan @ Alkama @ Mokhtar Ahmed Khan Son of Late
Ashfaq Ahmad Khan Resident of Mohalla- Benta Ward No. 43, P.S.-
Laheriasarai, Distt.- Darbhanga
6. Abrar Ahmad Khan @ Tamanna Son of Late Ashfaq Ahmad Khan Resident
of Mohalla- Benta Ward No. 43, P.S.- Laheriasarai, Distt.- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State: Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Senior Advocate
Ms. Saobiya Mushtaque, Advocate
Mr. Yasir Ashraf, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 29 -07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State as well as learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2.
2. This application has been filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of
cognizance dated 03.08.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
2/22
Magistrate, Darbhanga, arising from Laheriasarai P.S. Case No.
679 of 2022 dated 07.12.2022, whereby cognizance has been taken
against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections
341, 323, 447, 427, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, based on the
written report of one Mehtab Aziz Allam Khan submitted before
the Station House Officer, Laheriasarai Police Station, wherein he
has alleged inter alia that he lives abroad and his landed property
procured through sale-deed bearing Khata No. 127, Khesra No.
1344 and 1345, admeasuring 4.36 decimals and another landed
property admeasuring 6.54 decimals bearing Khata Nos. 211, 161,
Khesra Nos. 1090, 1091, 1347, 1341, 1342, 1343, the aforesaid
landed property is situated at VIP road, Laheriasarai, on which
there is a house with courtyard and electric connection. The road
having the approach to the rest of the landed property belongs to
his siblings. His brother Md. Ali Khan has been authorized to look
after the property. It is alleged that in the absence of the informant,
accused (i) Sabiha Khanam, (ii) Amir Aziz Allam Khan @ Minti,
(iii) Shah Sujah Aziz Alam Khan @ Prince, (iv) Mukhtar Ahmed
Khan @ Alkama, (v) Shabbir Ahmed Khan @ Bhura, (vi) Abrar
Ahmed Khan @ Tammana tried to disturb his possession which
was maintained since 2014-16 and also demolished part of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
3/22
house and tried to erect a pillar, which while protested by his
brother Md. Ali Khan, the accused persons abused and assaulted
him. The accused persons continued to encroach the land, for
which Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 642 of 2022 was also registered.
It is further alleged that when the informant was busy taking out
some important materials, the accused persons again came to the
land, on 06.12.2022 at about 6 AM, armed with lathi, rod and
sword along with 10-12 unknown persons and started encroaching
the land and, on protest, they abused him and attacked him, but he
was saved anyhow by the passers-by. It has further been alleged
that the accused persons tried to grab the property of the informant
and they are of criminal character. It has further been alleged that
the accused persons have opened fast food shop near his house,
where anti-social elements gather until late night and it has been
turned in to a liquor heaven. The accused persons have also
erected surveillance camera without permission of the
administration with its focus towards the house of the informant,
leading to infringement of privacy. The accused persons constantly
threaten him to leave the house and go abroad. It has also been
alleged that the accused persons may kill the informant for
grabbing the property.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
4/22
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the informant has intentionally suppressed the close
family relationship with the petitioners in the written report and
had alleged the petitioners to be the members of criminal gang to
mislead investigating agency as well as to the Court. It has further
been submitted that the core dispute is regarding one kattha of land
and the alleged forged gift-deed, which, at the best, to be
considered by competent Court of civil jurisdiction. A civil dispute
has been described as a criminal cloak. It has further been
submitted that altogether, seven F.I.Rs have been lodged against
the petitioners and other family members, which are as follows: -
(i) Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 642/2022,
(ii) Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 679/2022,
(iii) Laheriasarai (Benta O.P.) P.S. Case No. 10/2023,
(iv) Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 157/2023,
(v) Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 496/2023,
(vi) Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 503/2023, and
(vii) Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 571/2023.
4.1. It has further been submitted that a writ
petition, bearing CWJC No. 17164 of 2022, came to be filed
before this Court on 29.11.2022, in which prayer was made for
restraining the private respondents (some of the petitioners herein)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
5/22
from encroaching or interfering upon the property of the
informant, removal of unlawful and illegal construction carried out
by some of the petitioners and removal of blockage of common
pathway used by the informant and for a further direction to the
official respondents to remove the unlawful and illegal
construction. The present F.I.R. came to be lodged on 07.12.2022.
It has further been submitted that the primary objective of the
informant by lodging the present F.I.R. and also several other
F.I.Rs, i.e., total seven in numbers, is to put pressure upon the
petitioners to forego their claim over the land. It has further been
submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is widow of the deceased
brother of the present informant, while petitioner no. 2 is a student
of M.B.B.S. and petitioner no. 3 happens to be a law student at
Jamia Hamdard University, Delhi and the present F.I.R. has been
filed with an objective to falsely implicate them and also the other
petitioners with an oblique motive. It has further been submitted
that the police after investigation, has wrongly filed a charge-sheet
without investigating the case properly though the allegations were
levelled against the petitioners in the present F.I.R. with malafide
intent. The learned Magistrate also took cognizance against the
petitioners in a mechanical manner without applying judicial mind,
ignoring the fact that the allegations have been levelled in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
6/22
backdrop of pending serious land dispute between the parties. It
has further been submitted that the present criminal prosecution
has been launched to harass the present petitioners in order to grab
the property of the petitioners. It has further been submitted that
the informant has not resorted to civil litigation, as, according to
them, precious time would be consumed in the Court and by
resorting to filing the present F.I.R. against the petitioners, they
would be in a better position to facilitate a forceful compromise at
the hands of the petitioners. It has further been submitted that in
the various F.I.Rs, all the family members including the three
daughters have been made accused. Numerous cases were filed by
the informant or his brother with a primary and only objective to
falsely implicate the petitioners and the rest family members out of
grudge, malice, personal vengeance and to spite personal score. It
has further been submitted that the informant has not set the
criminal law in motion with clean hands. It has further been
submitted that the multiplicity of several F.I.Rs lodged against the
petitioners or their family members itself goes to show that the
informant has abused the process of law with only objective to
wreck vengeance out of vexatious attitude. It has further been
submitted that several pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court
as well as of this Court would put an insight into the vexatious
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
7/22
attitude of the informant by filing multiple F.I.Rs against the
petitioners and his family members.
4.2. In support of his contention, learned counsel
for the petitioners has firstly referred to the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P.,
reported in (2023) 20 SCC 219, and has relied upon paragraphs
36, 37 and 38 of the said judgment, which are reproduced
hereinunder:-
36. 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
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.
37. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
8/22
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.
38. 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 482 CrPC or Article
226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself
only to the stage of a case but is 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.
4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further
relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Ankul Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060, and has heavily placed
reliance on paragraph 11.5 of the said judgment which is
reproduced hereinunder:-
11.5. Thus, the cumulative principles
that emerge are: while the jurisdiction under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
9/22
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and must
be exercised sparingly, it is the duty of the
High Court to intervene where continuation of
criminal proceedings would amount to an
abuse of process of law, or where the dispute is
purely of a civil nature and criminal colour
has been artificially given to it. Conversely,
where disputed questions of fact arise
requiring adjudication, the matter must
ordinarily proceed to trial.
4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further
place reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, reported in (2001) 6 SCC
181 and relied upon paragraph 18, 20, 27 and 35 of the said
judgment which are reproduced hereinunder:-
18. An information given under sub-
section (1) of Section 154 CrPC is commonly
known as first information report (FIR) though
this term is not used in the Code. It is a very
important document. And as its nickname
suggests it is the earliest and the first
information of a cognizable offence recorded
by an officer in charge of a police station. It
sets the criminal law in motion and marks the
commencement of the investigation which ends
up with the formation of opinion under Section
169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and
forwarding of a police report under Section
173 CrPC. It is quite possible and it happens
not infrequently that more informations than
one are given to a police officer in charge of a
police station in respect of the same incident
involving one or more than one cognizable
offences. In such a case he need not enter
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
10/22
every one of them in the station house diary
and this is implied in Section 154 CrPC. Apart
from a vague information by a phone call or a
cryptic telegram, the information first entered
in the station house diary, kept for this
purpose, by a police officer in charge of a
police station is the first information report --
FIR postulated by Section 154 CrPC. All other
informations made orally or in writing after
the commencement of the investigation into the
cognizable offence disclosed from the facts
mentioned in the first information report and
entered in the station house diary by the police
officer or such other cognizable offences as
may come to his notice during the
investigation, will be statements falling under
Section 162 CrPC. No such
information/statement can properly be treated
as an FIR and entered in the station house
diary again, as it would in effect be a second
FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with
the scheme of CrPC. Take a case where an FIR
mentions cognizable offence under Section 307
or 326 IPC and the investigating agency
learns during the investigation or receives
fresh information that the victim died, no fresh
FIR under Section 302 IPC need be registered
which will be irregular; in such a case
alteration of the provision of law in the first
FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us
consider a different situation in which H
having killed W, his wife, informs the police
that she is killed by an unknown person or
knowing that W is killed by his mother or
sister, H owns up the responsibility and during
investigation the truth is detected; it does not
require filing of fresh FIR against H -- the real
offender -- who can be arraigned in the report
under Section 173(2) or 173(8) CrPC, as the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
11/22
case may be. It is of course permissible for the
investigating officer to send up a report to the
Magistrate concerned even earlier that
investigation is being directed against the
person suspected to be the accused.
20. From the above discussion it
follows that under the scheme of the provisions
of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170
and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first
information in regard to the commission of a
cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of
Section 154 CrPC. Thus there can be no
second FIR and consequently there can be no
fresh investigation on receipt of every
subsequent information in respect of the same
cognizable offence or the same occurrence or
incident giving rise to one or more cognizable
offences. On receipt of information about a
cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to
a cognizable offence or offences and on
entering the FIR in the station house diary, the
officer in charge of a police station has to
investigate not merely the cognizable offence
reported in the FIR but also other connected
offences found to have been committed in the
course of the same transaction or the same
occurrence and file one or more reports as
provided in Section 173 CrPC.
27. A just balance between the
fundamental rights of the citizens under
Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the
expansive power of the police to investigate a
cognizable offence has to be struck by the
court. There cannot be any controversy that
sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers
the police to make further investigation, obtain
further evidence (both oral and documentary)
and forward a further report or reports to the
Magistrate. In Narang case it was, however,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
12/22
observed that it would be appropriate to
conduct further investigation with the
permission of the court. However, the
sweeping power of investigation does not
warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh
investigation by the police in respect of the
same incident, giving rise to one or more
cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of
successive FIRs whether before or after filing
the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It
would clearly be beyond the purview of
Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of
abuse of the statutory power of investigation in
a given case. In our view a case of fresh
investigation based on the second or
successive FIRs, not being a counter-case,
filed in connection with the same or connected
cognizable offence alleged to have been
committed in the course of the same
transaction and in respect of which pursuant
to the first FIR either investigation is under
way or final report under Section 173(2) has
been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit
case for exercise of power under Section 482
CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution.
35. For the aforementioned reasons,
the registration of the second FIR under
Section 154 CrPC on the basis of the letter of
the Director General of Police as Crime No.
268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station
is not valid and consequently the investigation
made pursuant thereto is of no legal
consequence, they are accordingly quashed.
We hasten to add that this does not preclude
the investigating agency from seeking leave of
the Court in Crimes Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994
for making further investigations and filing a
further report or reports under Section 173(8)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
13/22
CrPC before the competent Magistrate in the
said cases. In this view of the matter, we are
not inclined to interfere with the judgment of
the High Court under challenge insofar as it
relates to quashing of Crime No. 268 of 1997
of Kuthuparamba Police Station against the
ASP (R.A. Chandrasekhar); in all other
aspects the impugned judgment of the High
Court shall stand set aside.
4.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that institution of F.I.R./complaint cannot be used to
settle civil/property disputes when the dispute essentially arise out
of a land/property dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
further submitted that due to land disputes, the petitioners and their
family members were implicated in seven criminal cases and in
support of the same, he has again referred to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ANKUL SINGH (supra)
and has placed reliance upon paragraphs 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5
which are reproduced hereinunder:-
"8.2. It was submitted that the
investigation was conducted with apparent
bias by the local police at the behest of local
politicians and the District Administration.
This is evident from the fact that the appellant
was implicated as accused in eight FIRs within
a span of one week, and charge sheets were
filed in a hurried manner during the pendency
of the appellant's writ petition seeking transfer
of investigation. This fact was also noticed by
the High Court in its order dated 16.01.2004
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
14/22
passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
3713 of 2003.
8.3. The learned Senior Counsel
contended that the High Court erred in
holding that the appellant's submissions
constituted defence evidence which could not
be examined at the stage of Section 482
proceedings. Reliance was placed on
Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir
Industries Ltd., wherein, this Court held that
though ordinarily defence material may not be
considered, documents of unimpeachable
character can be looked into for the purpose of
determining whether continuance of
proceedings would amount to abuse of process
of court.
8.4. Further reliance was placed on
Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of
Delhi), wherein this Court held that the High
Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is not confined to the stage of FIR and can be
exercised even after filing of charge sheet, to
prevent abuse of process of law. Similarly, in
Mukesh and others v. State of UP and others,
this Court held that the scope of Section 482 is
wider than that of discharge proceedings, as in
quashing petitions the accused may rely on
documents outside the charge sheet to
demonstrate abuse of process of law.
8.5. It was finally submitted that the
present case squarely falls under the
categories illustrated in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, particularly Para 102(7), where,
this Court held that proceedings manifestly
attended with mala fide, or maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance due to private or personal grudge,
are liable to be quashed."
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
15/22
4.6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., reported in (2000) 2 SCC
636, and has placed reliance upon the paragraph 11, which is
reproduced hereinunder:-
"11. In Chandrapal Singh v.
Maharaj Singh the judgment started as under:
(SCC p. 467, para 1)
"A frustrated landlord after having
met his Waterloo in the hierarchy of civil
courts, has further enmeshed the tenant in a
frivolous criminal prosecution which prima
facie appears to be an abuse of the process of
law. The facts when stated are so telling that
the further discussion may appear to be
superfluous."
This Court said: (SCC p. 474, para 14)
"We see some force in the
submission but it is equally true that chagrined
and frustrated litigants should not be
permitted to give vent to their frustration by
cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal
court. Complainant herein is an advocate. He
lost in both courts in the rent control
proceedings and has now rushed to the
criminal court. This itself speaks volumes. Add
to this the fact that another suit between the
parties was pending from 1975. The
conclusion is inescapable that invoking the
jurisdiction of the criminal court in this
background is an abuse of the process of law
and the High Court rather glossed over this
important fact while declining to exercise its
power under Section 482 CrPC."
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
16/22
4.7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a
serious matter and the criminal law cannot be set into motion as a
matter of course and it has further been submitted that summoning
the accused by learned Magistrate reflect that he has applied his
mind on the facts and and the law applicable thereto. In support of
the same, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of PEPSI
FOODS LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. SPECIAL JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS, reported in (1998) 5 Supreme
Court Cases 749, and has referred to paragraph 28, which is
reproduced hereinunder:-
"28. Summoning of an accused in a
criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law
cannot be set into motion as a matter of
course. It is not that the complainant has to
bring only two witnesses to support his
allegations in the complaint to have the
criminal law set into motion. The order of the
Magistrate summoning the accused must
reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts
of the case and the law applicable thereto. He
has to examine the nature of allegations made
in the complaint and the evidence both oral
and documentary in support thereof and would
that be sufficient for the complainant to
succeed in bringing charge home to the
accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent
spectator at the time of recording of
preliminary evidence before summoning of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
17/22
accused. The Magistrate has to carefully
scrutinise the evidence brought on record and
may even himself put questions to the
complainant and his witnesses to elicit
answers to find out the truthfulness of the
allegations or otherwise and then examine if
any offence is prima facie committed by all or
any of the accused."
4.8. Advancing his submissions, learned counsel
for the petitioners has, thus, submitted that the informant never
availed the remedies as provided under civil laws, even a Division
Bench of this Court, by order dated 01.10.2024 passed in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 1469 of 2023 (Sabiha Khanam and Ors. Vs.
Mahtab Aziz Alam Khan & Ors.) (the petitioners herein) annexed
as Annexure-P3 to this application, has observed in paragraphs 3,
4, 5 and 7, as under, and has held that the parties have remedy
before appropriate civil forum:-
"3. The averments from the writ
petition also indicate that there is a dispute
between the writ petitioner and the 9th
respondent; the 9th respondent being the wife
of the brother of the writ petitioner. Admittedly,
the brother of the writ petitioner who is now
deceased, had purchased two kathas of land
and he also constructed a house and a shop in
one katha of land. The balance one katha of
land is said to have been gifted to the writ
petitioner. The writ petitioner has also
purchased some land on the boundary of the
gifted property on which construction is
carried out. The claim in the writ petition was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
18/22
that the 9th respondent has been carrying on
constructions in the property thus blocking the
way into the gifted property and the adjacent
self acquired property.
4. The petitioner, in the writ petition
has prayed for restraining the private
respondents from encroaching or interferring
upon the property of the petitioner, removal of
unlawful and illegal construction carried out
by the respondents and removal of blockage of
the common pathway used by the writ
petitioner and a further direction to the official
respondents to remove the unlawful and illegal
construction.
5. We are of the opinion that all
these prayers are best agitated and properly
too, in a civil suit filed before the appropriate
Civil Forum. The learned Counsel for the
appellants, who was the 9th respondent, also
submits that they have serious contentions
against the gift asserted by the writ petitioner.
The directions issued by the learned Single
Judge according to us could not have been
issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, especially since disputes on title along
with identification of the properties on which
conflicting claims are made, has to be
adjudicated on a forum where evidence can be
led and controverted; substantively.
7. We are of the opinion that the
appeal has to be allowed, setting aside the
order impugned and since we have called for
the writ petition also, we deem it appropriate
to reject the writ petition, leaving the parties to
agitate their respective causes before the
appropriate civil forum. We make it clear that
what we have recorded hereinabove is only the
submissions made with respect to the
conflicting claims of the parties and it need not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
19/22
be taken as an observation on merits; which
has to be considered by the appropriate civil
forum, which is approached."
4.9. By exhaustive argument on law and facts,
learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the impugned
order taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners is bad in
law and on facts and, in fact, the allegations in the F.I.R. coupled
with the dispute between the parties, which are primarily of civil
nature, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and
the same is liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the State as well as
learned senior counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has
vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Referring to the
counter-affidavit, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant has submitted that at the initial stage of prosecution,
when a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, no
interference is required. It has further been submitted that the
allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose a prima facie case against the
petitioners. It has further been submitted that in certain cases, the
same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as well as in
criminal proceedings and even if civil remedies are available to the
parties, he is not precluded from setting in motion the proceedings
in criminal case. It has further been submitted that only
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
20/22
consideration for the learned Magistrate, at the time of taking
cognizance, is to see that whether a prima facie case is made out or
not. The learned Magistrate, applying his judicial mind upon the
allegations against the petitioners and the charge-sheet, has rightly
taken cognizance against the petitioners and summoned them to
face trial. In support of the same, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 has placed reliance upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mohd.
Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107 ;
in the case of Kathyayini vs. Siddharth P.S. Reddy and others
reported in MANU/SC/0888/2025 as well as in the case of
Pramila Devi and others vs. The State of Jharkhand and
another; reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 467. Thus, while
concluding the argument, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that order taking
cognizance may not be interfered with and the prosecution against
the petitioners should continue.
6. Heard the parties and perused the record.
7. It is apparent from the facts and circumstances
discussed above that the parties have civil dispute with respect to
properties. From perusal of the records, it appears even from
Annexure-C annexed to the counter-affidavit, that on 21.12.2022,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
21/22
when the writ petition filed by the informant bearing CWJC No.
17164 of 2022 was heard and notices were issued to the present
petitioners, the present F.I.R. came to be lodged by the informant
on 07.12.2022. Another F.I.R., bearing Laheriasarai P.S. Case No.
642 of 2022, was lodged by the brother of the informant on
22.11.2022
. It appears that when MJC No. 1960 of 2023 in CWJC
No. 17164 of 2022 was heard on 01.09.2023, and certain
SPONSORED
directions were issued, in that year also, i.e., in the year 2023,
altogether five F.I.Rs were lodged against the petitioners and their
other family members. The filing of multiple F.I.Rs against the
petitioners and their family members goes to show that the
informant has abused the process of Court for illegal gains out of
malicious intent. It further appears from the records that a civil
dispute has been dressed up in criminal garment only with a view
to wreck vengeance and to put pressure and force the petitioners to
succumb to the illegal intent of the informant so that the
petitioners would give up their claim over the properties in
dispute. The informant, as appears from the records of the case,
has never resorted to civil remedies even when the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court has observed that the dispute
between the parties are of civil nature and the parties should
approach the appropriate civil forum agitating their claim.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12669 of 2025 dt.29-07-2026
22/22
8. Having considered the entire facts in totality,
the impugned order taking cognizance is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, order taking cognizance dated 03.08.2024 passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, arising from
Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 679 of 2022 dated 07.12.2022, is
hereby set aside.
9. The application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Abdus Samad/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 29.06.2026. Uploading Date 29.07.2026. Transmission Date 29.07.2026.
