Allowed¶39

Suryakanti Devi v. The State of Bihar

Criminal Miscellaneous jurisdiction (S.482 Cr.P.C.) – Quashing of cognizance

Patna HC4 Mar 2024CR. MISC./7120/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2023, decided 04-03-2024 by Prabhat Kumar Singh, J. Section 482 CrPC quashing of cognizance under Sections 406/504/506 IPC; Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) Category (7) applied; complaint held maliciously instituted / mala fide / vendetta in retaliation of cross-case (Sandesh P.S. Case No. 76/2019, Ss.341/323/504/498A/302/34 IPC); cognizance order dated 03.09.2020 in G.R. No. 4222 of 2019 quashed qua maternal grandmother and maternal uncle of complainant.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order of cognizance dated 03.09.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhojpur, Ara in G.R. No. 4222 of 2019, arising out of Sandesh P.S. Case No. 216 of 2019, qua the petitioners. ¶39

Suryakanti Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of cognizance dated 03.09.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhojpur (Ara) in G.R. No. 4222 of 2019 (Sandesh P.S. Case No. 216 of 2019) against the petitioners is liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the complaint has been maliciously instituted with oblique motive and mala fide intention.

¶20

Court's answer

It is a fit case to interfere with the order of the court below; the present case is fully covered by Category (7) of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, being a criminal proceeding instituted in retaliation of Sandesh P.S. Case No. 76/2019 lodged by petitioner no. 1 against the informant and his family members.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Considering the background of the case, the Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that the present complaint has been filed more in the nature of vendetta to humiliate, harass and teach a lesson.

¶37

Key takeaways

The application is allowed and the order of cognizance dated 03.09.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhojpur, Ara in G.R. No. 4222 of 2019, arising out of Sandesh P.S. Case No. 216 of 2019, is quashed so far as these petitioners are concerned.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous jurisdiction (S.482 Cr.P.C.) — Quashing of cognizance — Order dated 03.09.2020 of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhojpur (Ara) in G.R. No. 4222 of 2019 (Complaint Case No. 932C of 2019 / Sandesh P.S. Case No. 216 of 2019) taking cognizance against petitioners under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC — Petitioner no. 1 is maternal grandmother and petitioner no. 2 maternal uncle of complainant — Complaint alleging retention of deceased mother's ornaments (Rs. 1,50,000/-) and cash (Rs. 2,00,000/-) — Held: complaint instituted in retaliation of Sandesh P.S. Case No. 76/2019 lodged by petitioner no. 1 against the informant's family — Fully covered by Category (7) of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 — More in the nature of vendetta to humiliate, harass and teach a lesson — Cognizance order quashed qua petitioners; application allowed (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7120 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2019 Thana- SANDESH District- Bhojpur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

1. Suryakanti Devi Wife of Janardan Mishra R/V- Karman Tola, PS- Ara Nawada, Dist- Bhojpur, At present Village- Pinjori, P.S- Sandesh DistBhojpur

¶5

Arbind Mishra Son of Janardan Mishra R/V- Pinjori P.S - Sandesh DistBhojpur

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar

¶9

Raunak Kumar Pandey Son of Santosh Pandey R/V- Surungapur, P.SSandesh Dist- Bhojpur

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar Mr. Shantam Shivam Mr. Umesh Prasad ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶13

3. 04-03-2024

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

¶15

A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶16

These petitioners have approached this Court under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Bhojpur, Ara (hereinafter referred to as “Magistrate”) in G.R. No. 4222 of 2019, arising out of Sandesh P.S. Case No. 216 of 2019, on the basis of

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2023(3) dt.04-03-2024 2/5

¶18

Complaint Case No. 932C of 2019. By this said order, the learned Magistrate, while exonerating other accused persons, took cognizance only against these petitioners for the offence under Sections 406, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons against them for their appearance.

¶19

The case of the complainant, in short, is that his mother was suffering from Cancer and she died on 07.02.2019 due to burn injury suffered in the course of cooking. The complainant further alleged that his mother kept ornaments worth Rs. 1,50,000/- and cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the custody of his maternal uncle and maternal grand mother (i.e. petitioners), but they refused to return the same to the complainant and also threatened him to kill.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that present case has been maliciously instituted only with an oblique motive and malafide intention just to harass and humiliate these petitioners. As a matter of fact, petitioner no. 1 namely Suryakanti Devi instituted a case, vide Sandesh P.S. Case No. 76/2019, under Sections 341, 323, 504, 498A, 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against informant and his family members and in retaliation, this false and concocted case has

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2023(3) dt.04-03-2024 3/5

¶22

been lodged. Petitioner no. 1 is maternal grandmother (ukuh) and petitioner no. 2 is maternal uncle (ekek) of the complainant/ informant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain parameters. The High Court can quash an FIR or a complaint in the exercise of its powers under “Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 CrPC:

¶23

I. Where the allegations made in the FIR 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.

¶24

II. Where the allegations in the FIR and other materials accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation under section 156(1) of Cr.P.C. except an order of a Magistrate under section155(2) Cr.P.C.

¶25

III. Where uncontroverted allegations in the FIR or the complaint and the evidence collected in support do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶26

IV. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence.

¶27

V. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2023(3) dt.04-03-2024 4/5

¶29

proceeding against the accused.

¶30

VI. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in the Cr.P.C. or the concerned Act to the institution of criminal proceedings or where there is a specific provision in the Cr.P.C. or concerned Act providing efficacious redress.

¶31

VII. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or where a proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and to spite him due to a private and personal grudge.”

¶32

On aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing the order of cognizance.

¶33

However, learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for OP-2 vehemently opposed the prayer of petitioners and submitted that there are sufficient materials to take cognizance against petitioners. There is specific and direct allegation that after death of mother of complainant, they kept the cash and jewellery of the mother of complainant and refused to hand over to the complainant.

¶34

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is a fit case to interfere with the order of learned Court below. The present case is fully covered by Category (7) of Bhajan Lal’s case ( supra ). The present case is in retaliation of the Sandesh P.S. Case No. 76/2019, which has been lodged by petitioner no.

¶35

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2023(3) dt.04-03-2024 5/5

¶36

1 against the informant and his family members.

¶37

Considering the background of the case, I would be inclined to agree with submission of the counsel for the petitioners that the present complaint has been filed more in the nature of vendetta to humiliate, harass and teach a lesson.

¶38

Hence, this application is allowed. The order of cognizance dated 03.09.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Bhojpur, Ara in G.R. No. 4222 of 2019, arising out of Sandesh P.S. Case No. 216 of 2019, so far as these petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed.

¶39

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶40

anay

¶41

U T

Suryakanti Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryakanti Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Babban Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Laxmi Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Arti Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Nasim Ahmad @ Md. Wasim Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Charitra Sahni Vs The State of Bihar