Case Background
This case arose out of a serious family dispute over ancestral property between two branches of the same family.
The complainant (opposite party no. 2) is married to the elder brother of petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 2 is the wife of petitioner no. 1, and petitioner no. 3 is their son. All three petitioners belong to the same extended family as the complainant.
According to the petitioners, the father of petitioner no. 1 and the husband of the complainant had left behind ancestral property. Petitioner no. 1 claimed that this ancestral house was fraudulently taken over by the complainant and her husband.
Because of this dispute, petitioner no. 1 filed Title Partition Suit No. 120 of 2013 in February 2013. He also lodged Complaint Case No. 399 (C) of 2013 on 08.02.2013 against the complainant, her husband, their two sons and another person, alleging that a gift deed had been fraudulently obtained in favour of the complainant from his mother.
This earlier complaint was referred to the police and resulted in Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 52 of 2013, dated 22.02.2013. In that police case, charge-sheet was submitted, and charges were framed against the complainant, her husband, two sons and one more person.
After these proceedings, the complainant filed Complaint Case No. 1812 (C) of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. She alleged that on 20.05.2013, the three petitioners entered her house, assaulted the inmates, molested her daughter, snatched gold chains from her and her daughter, and did all this by brandishing a knife and a pistol.
On the basis of the complaint and the statement of witnesses, the Magistrate took cognizance on 10.01.2014 under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the petitioners.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners approached the Patna High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the cognizance order and the entire criminal proceeding so far as it related to them.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, heard the petitioners, the State, and the complainant.
The petitioners’ main argument was that the criminal case was a counterblast to the earlier property-related proceedings and that the allegations were inherently false and impossible.
They pointed out that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were residing in Delhi. Petitioner no. 3 was working as a sailor and did not reside in Patna at all.
The most crucial fact placed before the Court was the travel record of petitioner no. 3. The petitioners produced a photocopy of the relevant portion of his passport. This showed that petitioner no. 3 was sailing on a ship from 12.04.2013 to 19.08.2013 and was therefore on the sea on 20.05.2013, the alleged date of occurrence.
The petitioners argued that, in such circumstances, the story that all three came to Patna, entered the complainant’s house, assaulted her family and molested her daughter while brandishing weapons and snatching gold chains, was not only improbable but absurd.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State supported this line of reasoning. He submitted that in view of the above facts, the case appeared totally unreliable.
The learned counsel for the complainant initially defended the order of cognizance, saying that the Magistrate had acted on the materials before him, namely the complaint and witness statements.
However, when the Court directly asked how petitioner no. 3 could have been present in Patna on 20.05.2013 when his passport showed he was on board a ship at that time, counsel for the complainant had no answer. There was no denial of the passport entry or any material to suggest that it was incorrect. At this stage, the complainant’s counsel fairly stated that, in view of what was on record, he was not in a position to oppose the petitioners’ prayer for quashing.
After considering the rival submissions and the documents, the Patna High Court found that interference under Section 482 was justified.
The Court highlighted the surrounding circumstances: a pending title partition suit between the parties, an earlier complaint and police case filed by petitioner no. 1 against the complainant and her family, and the fact that the petitioners did not live in Patna.
In this background, the allegation that they suddenly came to Patna, forcibly entered the complainant’s house, and committed offences in the manner described, appeared highly improbable and unbelievable.
Most importantly, the Court stressed the uncontroverted fact that petitioner no. 3 was sailing on the sea on the date of the alleged occurrence. Once this fact was accepted, the entire foundation of the complaint was shaken. If one of the alleged assailants was demonstrably not present, the Court saw this as clearly demolishing the whole story.
The Court observed that petitioner no. 3 was the nephew of the complainant’s husband. Given the bitter dispute over ancestral property and the earlier criminal case initiated by the petitioners, his implication in this complaint showed falseness, mala fide intention and an oblique motive.
The Court therefore concluded that the complaint case was malicious, filed with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners and wreak vengeance, rather than to seek genuine criminal justice.
To support the exercise of its inherent powers, the Court referred to several earlier decisions on Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
First, it cited its own decision in Ashutosh Mukherjee v. The State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. No. 47012 of 2014, judgment dated 18.04.2019). In that decision, the Court had summarised Supreme Court judgments explaining that Section 482 CrPC (earlier Section 561-A of the 1898 Code) does not create new powers, but preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice.
The Court quoted from State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim (AIR 1964 SC 703), State v. Navjot Sandhu ((2003) 6 SCC 641), Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi ((2013) 4 SCC 58), Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat ((2017) 9 SCC 641), and its own decision in Rupesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. No. 30470 of 2016, order dated 21.02.2019). These cases collectively emphasise that the High Court has wide and unfettered inherent powers, to be used when necessary to secure justice or prevent misuse of the criminal process.
The Court then relied on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. In paragraph 102 of that decision, the Supreme Court had listed seven illustrative categories of cases where the High Court may use its inherent powers to quash proceedings.
Out of those seven, the Patna High Court held that the present case fell squarely under categories (5) and (7): where the allegations in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could conclude there is sufficient ground for proceeding; and where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.
The Court also cited State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy ((1977) 2 SCC 699), where the Supreme Court observed that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if allowing it to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court, and that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to become a weapon of harassment or persecution.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court held that the complaint in this case was exactly the kind of misuse of criminal law that Section 482 is meant to curb. The case was seen as a tool in a family property battle, not a genuine attempt to prosecute real offences.
In the final part of the judgment, the Court clearly stated that the present case was malicious, aimed at wreaking vengeance and harassing the petitioners, and filed for oblique reasons with an ulterior motive.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application. It quashed the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 1812 (C) of 2013 pending before the court below at Patna, including the cognizance order dated 10.01.2014, so far as it related to the petitioners.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for people involved in family or property disputes who suddenly find themselves facing criminal cases filed by the other side.
The Patna High Court shows that when a complaint is clearly filed out of revenge, and basic facts like presence at the place of occurrence are disproved, the High Court can step in and stop the misuse of criminal law.
For ordinary citizens, especially those living outside Bihar or working away from home, this case demonstrates that travel records and official documents like passports can be vital evidence to show that accusations are false.
For lawyers, the judgment reinforces that Section 482 CrPC remains a strong remedy where criminal proceedings are absurd, improbable, or driven by mala fide intentions in the context of civil or family disputes.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether the criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1812 (C) of 2013, based on allegations of assault, molestation and theft against close relatives, should continue when key facts show the allegations to be improbable and malicious.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the allegations were inherently improbable, clearly motivated by mala fide and vengeance in a property dispute, and therefore quashed the entire criminal proceeding and the cognizance order as against the petitioners under Section 482 CrPC. -
Issue: When can the Patna High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to interfere with a complaint case pending before a Magistrate?
Answer: The Court reiterated that Section 482 can be used to prevent abuse of court process and to secure the ends of justice, particularly where allegations are absurd and inherently improbable, or where proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, as recognised in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and other precedents.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Ashutosh Mukherjee v. The State of Bihar, Cr. Misc. No. 47012 of 2014, judgment dated 18.04.2019 (Patna High Court).
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703.
- Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18.
- Jairam Das v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 94.
- State v. Navjot Sandhu, (2003) 6 SCC 641.
- Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58.
- Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641.
- Rupesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar, Cr. Misc. No. 30470 of 2016, order dated 21.02.2019 (Patna High Court).
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
- State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3943 of 2015 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 1812 (C) of 2013)
Case Title: Upendra Kumar Sinha and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Citation: 2019(3) PLJR 98
Date of Judgment: 10.05.2019
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Advocates:
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Samir Kumar Sinha, Mr. Rajeev Nayan, Mr. Pramod Sinha, Advocates.
- For Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Raj Krishna Jha, Mr. Arbind Kumar Mour, Mr. Harsh Kumar, Advocates.
- For the State: Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP.
Nature of the Case: Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of cognizance order and related criminal proceedings.
Link to Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
