The Patna High Court quashed the crimiinal proceedings against the petitioner in a complaint alleging house ransacking and assault. The court held the case was manifestly attended with mala fide motives as per Bhajan Lal categories.
The order dated 27.09.2012 taking cognizance under the IPC against the petitioner is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10925 of 2013
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-700 Year-2012 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur
======================================================
Amrita Kumari D/O Suresh Sahni Resident Of Village- Bhakhtiyarpur, P.S.-
Chakmahesi, District- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-01-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10925 of 2013 dt.09-01-2019 2/6
“That this is an application for quashing the order dated 27.09.12 passed by Sri Surya Kant Tiwary, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Samastipur in complaint case no. C.R. no. 700/12 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against all the accused persons named in the complaint petition including the petitioner under Sections 323, 380 and 427 of the I.P.C.”
of ransacking the house of the opposite party no. 2 and also abusing and assaulting the family members with intention to loot, steal and demolish their house. It is further alleged that the accused were armed with lathi, spade, khanti and due to their activities, the opposite party no. 2 suffered a loss of Rs. 46,000/and further that co-accused Saudagar Sahni took away one tin box containing ornaments and clothes worth Rs. 68,000/- and when they were retreating, they had threatened the complainant that if she did not withdraw the Partition Suit, they would kill and kidnap the lady members of the family.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10925 of 2013 dt.09-01-2019 3/6
was submitted that in reality, it was the complainant’s side which had attacked the petitioner and her family members and had also demolished part of the house standing on their land for which fardbeyan was recorded on 30.04.2012 itself by the petitioner, who was injured, in the hospital, which was sent to the concerned police station resulting in lodging of Chakmahesi P.S. Case No. 41 of 2012 dated 09.05.2012. Learned counsel submitted that there was injury on the petitioner whereas there is no injury report in support of the complaint and the complainant’s case is a counter blast to the case lodged by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner as well as her grandfather had also lodged complaint before the District Police authorities with regard to the police not properly investigating the case due to the clout of the accused. It was submitted that such position was also certified by the Gram Kutchery which, in its order dated 09.06.2010, recorded that the petitioner’s family were constructing house on their own land and it was the complainant’s family who were the aggressors and also that they were not cooperating with the Gram Kutchery and in fact creating obstacles. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had since married and living in her matrimonial home.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10925 of 2013 dt.09-01-2019 4/6
“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 serious 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 exercise.
(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.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10925 of 2013 dt.09-01-2019 5/6
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a 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 institution 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.”
is covered under category 7 of the aforesaid judgment.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10925 of 2013 dt.09-01-2019 6/6
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint case against the petitioner should be quashed under inherent powers as it falls under mala fide speculation category.
Whether the allegations in the complaint constitute a valid cognizable offence against the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan LalApplied¶27
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amrita Kumari
The State Of Bihar
Dhanukhi Sahni
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
