The High Court quashed a criminal cognizance order against the petitioner in a matter arising from a civil money and land dispute, holding that the allegations did not constitute an offence and the proceeding was instituted with malafide motives.
The impugned cognizance order dated 03.04.2018 qua the petitioner is set aside/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.8117 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-672 Year-2016 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas
======================================================
Dinesh Mishra @ Dineshwar Mishra, S/o Late N. Mishra, R/o Vill.-Patian, P.S.-Sasaram, Dist.-Rohtas
... ... Petitioner
Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Dipak Kumar Singh, S/o- Sahdeo Singh, R/o Vill- Nayaka Gaon, P.S. Sasaram Town, Dist.- Rohtas ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R.K. Shukla, Adv. : Mr. Surendra Mishra, Adv. : Ms. Rachna Shukla, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-08-2026
order dated 03.04.2018 passed in Sasaram (M) P.S Case No. 672 of 2016 by C.J.M., Rohtas at Sasaram, whereby learned jurisdictional magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 382, 406, 420 and 504 of I.P.C against petitioner.
on the basis of a complaint alleging interalia that the complainant and the brother of the petitioner were on friendly term, and on 17.05.2015 at about 10.00 A.M.,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8117 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 2/8
accused persons and father of the accused no. 1 and 2 came to the house of the complainant, and asked him to arrange Rs. 7.5 lakhs, and they also said that a land has been mortgaged with a person, who is now pressuring to refund the amount. It is further alleged that the complainant told them to make arrangement within 2-4 days. The complainant managed the amount on interest and informed the accused persons and accordingly on 23.05.2015, accused persons and the father of the accused no. 1 and 2 came to the house of the complainant, and received Rs. 7.30 lakhs on stamp paper in front of the witnesses, and late Sunil Kumar Mishra signed on the agreement paper and all the accused persons gave consent and they assured to refund the amount by 31.12.2015 or to get the land registered. It is further alleged that when the accused persons did not return the amount, the complainant went to the house of the accused persons to take the money, then the accused persons handed over a cheque to the complainant signed by late Sunil Kumar Mishra and when the cheque was deposited in the account, it could not encashed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8117 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 3/8
In the meantime Sunil Kumar Mishra died on 21.01.2016 in suspected condition, and thereafter on 15.04.2016 when the complainant demanded the money, the accused persons refused to pay and the accused no. 3(petitioner) took out the pistol and put it on the complainant and further the accused no. 1 snatched the golden chain and the accused no. 2 snatched the timex watch of the complainant. It is further stated that on 16.04.2016, he made a complaint before the officer-in-charge Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S., but he refused to lodge the FIR and then he informed the S.P. vide registered letter dated 24.04.2016, but no action was taken, whereafter only he filed the present complaint case, which was forwarded to the Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S., and accordingly the instant F.I.R. has been lodged.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8117 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 4/8
submitted against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 382, 406, 420 and 504 of the I.P.C., where upon perusal of materials available on record, learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance for the aforesaid offences, against which the present petition was preferred.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8117 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 5/8
with the land deal, one Money Suit bearing no.15 of 2017 was filed against co-accused persons including the son of the deceased elder brother of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8117 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 6/8
However, it is fairly conceded that the money transaction was not with this petitioner, and the allegation is only available in those terms as submitted aforesaid by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Case (supra), which reads as under:-
“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.
(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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first informant 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8117 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 7/8
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 nay 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 persons 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.”
submissions and by taking note of fact as occurrence is primarily civil in nature, for which the money suit is also pending between the parties qua recovery of Rs.7.50 lakh as advanced by informant/OP no.2 to the deceased elder brother of the petitioner, accordingly, it transpired that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8117 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 8/8
petitioner appears implicated only out of oblique and ulterior motive, accordingly, by taking a guiding principle nos. 3 and 7 of Bhajan Lal Case (supra) , the impugned cognizance order dated 03.04.2018 qua petitioner, namely, Dinesh Mishra @ Dineshwar Mishra is hereby set aside/quashed.
allowed.
to the learned trial court forthwith, with TCR, if any.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Raushan/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | CAV |
| Uploading Date | 13.08.2026 |
| Transmission Date | 13.08.2026 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner was based on uncontroverted allegations that did not disclose the commission of an offence.
Whether the criminal proceeding was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive due to a private dispute arising from a civil land and money transaction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and OthersExplained¶7
State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
Dinesh Mishra @ Dineshwar Mishra
The State of Bihar
Dipak Kumar Singh
Chandra Shekhar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
