Dismissed¶52

Anjani Kumar v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC21 Jul 2026CR. MISC./1645/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of cognizance order refused - rash and negligent driving, Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC; (Traffic) Saguna More P.S. Case No. 38/2015, Patna; retaliatory FIR / mala fide / oblique motive plea; earlier Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 188 of 2015; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, para 102 categories; injured informant credibility; motorcycle registered in name of accused; disputed facts cannot be resolved in quashing jurisdiction; petition dismissed; expeditious trial direction; Patna High Court; Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; quashing petition dismissed. Learned Trial Court directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, in accordance with law, as the occurrence is of year 2015; copy of judgment to be sent to the trial court forthwith, with TCR if any. ¶52

Anjani Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition for quashing of the cognizance order dated 27.11.2018 in Yatyat(Traffic) (Saguna More) P.S. Case No. 38/2015 should be allowed on the plea that the FIR was retaliatory, lodged out of oblique motive and with malafide approach following the earlier Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 188 of 2015.

¶25

Court's answer

Taking note of the defence argument of false implication in the background of previous litigation, it cannot be said at this stage that no case is made out against the petitioner; the petition raising disputed questions of fact qua evidence is devoid of merit and is dismissed, as truth can be ascertained only during trial.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The informant received injuries during the occurrence and there is no apparent reason to disbelieve his version at this stage, since the occurrence is supported by the injured informant himself; the mala fide plea therefore does not warrant quashing.

¶32

Key takeaways

The motorcycle alleged to have caused the accident was registered in the name of the petitioner, a circumstance weighing against quashing at the threshold.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1645 of 2019, decided 21-07-2026 (NAFR) - Petition seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 27.11.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VI, Danapur in Yatyat(Traffic) (Saguna More) P.S. Case No. 38/2015 under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC DISMISSED. Prosecution case: on 07.09.2015 the informant Devendra Prasad Singh, standing on Bailey Road, was hit by Motorcycle No. BR-01BJ/6269 driven by petitioner Anjani Kumar in a rash and negligent manner and injured; FIR registered 08.09.2015. Defence plea: false implication owing to a land dispute and retaliation for the earlier Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 188 of 2015 (07.09.2015) lodged by the petitioner, all offences being bailable and compoundable, invoking State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. The court, noticing para 102 of Bhajan Lal, held there is no apparent reason at this stage to disbelieve the injured informant whose version supports the occurrence, and that the motorcycle in issue was registered in the petitioner's name; the plea of implication in the background of previous litigation raises disputed facts triable only during trial, so it cannot be said that no case is made out. Trial court directed to conclude the trial expeditiously as the occurrence is of year 2015; copy of judgment to be sent to the trial court with TCR, if any.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1645 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2015 Thana- TRAFFIC District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Anjani Kumar Late Mithila Saran Singh Resident of Village - Rukanpura

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Bihar

¶8

Devendra Prasad Singh Mithila Saran Singh R/O Vill. Rukanpura, Vijay Nagar

¶9

... ... Opposite Party

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Rikesh Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Lakshmi Kant Sharma, APP

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 21-07-2026

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

This application is directed for quashing of

¶16

cognizance order dated 27.11.2018, passed in Yatyat(Traffic) (Saguna More) P.S. Case No. 38/2015 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VI, Danapur under sections 279, 337, 338 of the I.P.C. against petitioner pending at present in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VI, Danapur.

¶17

As per case of prosecution, informant, Devendra Prasad Singh on 07.09.2015 at about 6:30 O'clock while he

¶18

was standing on Bailey Road in front of Rukanpura Purani

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1645 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026 2/6

¶20

Central Bank for school bus of his son, who is studying in St. xavier's School, Gandhi Maidan Patna, the driver of one Motorcycle No.- BR-01BJ/6269, Anjani Kumar (Petitioner) came driving motorcycle in very rash and negligent manner and hit the informant. As a result he fell down to the ground and got injured. It is further stated that persons present there took the informant to Sub-Divisional Hospital Danapur for treatment, where the informant got his treatment.

¶21

With aforesaid allegation, (Traffic) Saguna More P.S. Case No. 38 of 2015 was registered on 08.09.2015 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was implicated for the reason that O.P. No. 2 is in inimical terms with him due to land dispute and also as he lodged a criminal case against him in year 2015, which was registered as Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 188 of 2015 on 07.09.2015 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

It is submitted that all offences are bailable and

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1645 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026 3/6

¶25

compoundable in nature and this FIR was lodged in retaliation to earlier FIR which was lodged by him on just preceding day of the present occurrence out of oblique motive and with malafide approach and therefore, same is fit to be quashed in view of legal report as available through

¶26

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992 Supp (1) SCC

¶27

335].

¶28

Learned APP opposed the present quashing

¶29

petition.

¶30

Despite service of notice, none appeared on

¶31

behalf of O.P. No. 2 as to join the present pending proceeding.

¶32

Upon perusal of record, it appears that informant received injuries during the occurrence and there is no apparent reason to disbelieve his version at this stage, when the occurrence is supported by injured/informant himself. The motorcycle in issue which was alleged to cause accident was registered in the name of the petitioner.

¶33

It would be apposite to mention Para 102 of

¶34

the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992 Supp (1)

¶35

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1645 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026 4/6

¶36

SCC 335].

¶37

“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.

¶38

(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.

¶39

(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.

¶40

(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

¶41

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1645 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026

¶42

5/6

¶43

of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶44

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶45

(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.

¶46

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶47

(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. ”

¶48

In view of aforesaid and by taking note of only

¶49

defence argument as this petitioner was implicated falsely in

¶50

the background of previous litigation it cannot be said at this stage that no case is made out against petitioner as truth

¶51

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1645 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026 6/6

¶52

can be ascertained on the basis of evidence, during the trial only, accordingly, the present petition which is raising the disputed facts qua evidences is devoid of any merit, particularly when occurrence was supported by injured/ informant and, therefore, the same stands dismissed.

¶53

Let the copy of judgment be sent to learned trial court forthwith, with TCR if any.

¶54

Learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, in accordance with law, as occurrence is of year 2015.

¶55

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

¶56

Aniket/-

¶57

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	22.07.2026
Transmission Date	22.07.2026

Anjani Kumar v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjani Kumar v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

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

Smt. Kalyani Jha and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Sanjay Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Gagandeo Bharati Vs The State of Bihar and Anr.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Rizawan @ Md. Rijwan Alam and Ors. Vs The State of Bihar and Anr.

Md. Rizawan Alam @ Heera Smar and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.