Patna High Court
Kailash Thakur @ Kailash Bihari Thakur vs The State Of Bihar on 7 January, 2025
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17102 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2022 Thana- BASOPATTI District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Kailash Thakur @ Kailash Bihari Thakur S/o Late Mathura Thakur R/o
village- Jaso, P.S.- Basopatti, Distt- Madhubani.
2. Rajan Pandey @ Rajan Kumar Pandey S/o Binod Pandey R/o village- Jaso,
P.S.- Basopatti, Distt- Madhubani.
3. Rajendra Thakur S/o Yugeshwar Thakur R/o village- Jaso, P.S.- Basopatti,
Distt- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vikash Kumar Das S/o Kishun Das R/o Village- Jaso, P.S.- Basopatti, Distt-
Madhubani.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Banwari Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Sahjanand Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Ms. Vagisha Pragya V. Advocate
Ms. Ankita Roy, Advocate
Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 07.01.2025
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC has
been preferred for quashing the First Information Report of
Basopatti P.S. Case No. 03 of 2022 registered on 03.01.2022
against eleven accused persons including the petitioners herein
for offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 379, 324,
325,307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3(i)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
2/29
2. The prosecution case as emerging from the written
report of the informant is that on 29.12.2021 at 7:00 AM, he was
taken by accused Binod Pandey for some labour work. As per
his direction, the informant cut grass from his field. Thereafter
the informant was asked to come at 1:00 P.M. for his labour
charge and when the informant went to the accused Binod
Pandey for labour charge, he was asked to clean his toilet and
only then he would get his labour charge. But the informant
refused to clean toilet. Then the accused Binod Pandey stated to
him that he would not pay his labour charge because he has not
cleaned the toilet despite being a harijan. Hot talk ensued
between the two. In the meantime, Rajan Pandey, son of Binod
Pandey came to him and started abusing him, using the word
Madhar Chod Harijan and asking how he was daring to disobey
the order of his father. He also threw the plate with leftover
food, which he was carrying in his hand, on his face and he
pushed him down. Both Binod Pandey and Rajan Pandey
continued abusing him, using the word harijan. On hearing
hulla, Bhogendra Mandal, Rajendra Mandal and others came
there. After seeing these people, both the accused went back into
their house. The informant returned to his home without getting
labour charge.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
3/29
3. It is further alleged that at 7 PM, accused Birendra
Jha arrived at the house of Binod Pandey with arms in his hand
and made unlawful assembly and proceeded towards the house
of the informant with intent to commit loot. Accused Rishi
Thakur was carrying iron rod, Abhay Thakur @ Chhotu and
Rajendra Thakur were carrying lathi in their hands, Rakesh
Thakur was carrying iron rod, Keshav Thakur was also carrying
rod, Kailash Thakur was carrying lathi, Raju Thakur was
carrying pistol and Mukesh Thakur was carrying lathi. They
reached the house of the informant. Birendra Jha and Binod
Pandey started loot-pat in his house. Birendra Jha also stated to
him that despite being harijan, he was daring to disobey the
order of Binod Pandey. He also stated that he would be forced to
flee away from here that day. The informant protested against
the entry of the accused persons into his house, whereupon
accused Binod Pandey and Rakesh Kumr spit on his face and
abused him and threatned that he had become arrogant and he
would not be allowed to live. By that time, accused Sukmari
Devi, Raj Kumari Devi, Bimla Devi, Malti Devi, Mandi
Mandal, Yogendra Mandal also rushed to the place of
occurrence and prohibited the accused persons from entering
into the house of the informant. But, accused Binod Pandey,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
4/29
Rajendra Thakur and Birendra Jha exhorted their men to assault
these persons also, who had come to protect harizan,
whereupon, accused Rajan Pandey assaulted Bimla Devi on her
head. However, Bimla Devi escaped from the attack on head but
sustained injury on her shoulder and her shoulder got broken.
Sukmari Devi was assaulted by Rakesh Thakur by iron rod
resulting into breaking of her hand. Rishi Thakur assaulted
Sukmari Devi on her waist. Malti Devi was assaulted by
Rajendra Thakur on her head. Binod Pandey assaulted the
informant causing injury to him and Raj Kumari Devi was
assaulted by Kailash Thakur and she was asked about the
whereabouts of her husband Nage Mandal to kill him. But
fortunately Nage Mandal was not at his home. Birendra Jha and
Mangal were also displaying their pistols to cause fear in their
mind. Due to hulla, many people also came there but seeing
these persons, the accused persons fled away. While going,
Binod Pandey also took away the box containing money and
ornaments worth Rs.25,000/-. Thereafter, the injured persons
were taken to Basopatti Primary Health Centre for their
treatment. Some of them were grievously injured, hence they
were referred to Madhubani, where they are getting treated. On
account of such treatment, the informant had given the written
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
5/29
statement with some delay.
4. On the basis of the said written report, Basopatti
P.S. Case No. 03 of 2022 was registered against eleven accused
persons including the petitioners. Hence, being aggrieved by
this F.I.R., the petitioners have preferred the present petition to
quash the present F.I.R.
5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel
for the Opposite Party No.2 (informant).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated. He
further submits that even going by the uncontroverted
allegation made in the written report, no offence is made out
against the petitioners. Hence, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed
against the petitioners to prevent the abuse of process of the
Court and meet the ends of justice.
7. He further submits that the impugned F.I.R.
Basopatti P.S. Case No. 03 of 2022 lodged by Vikash Kumar
Das has been filed malafide with ulterior motive to wreak
vengeance in view of Basopatti P.S. Case No. 02 of 2022 lodged
by mother of the petitioner no.2 for offence punishable under
Sections 323, 341, 379, 354(B), 307, 504, 506 read with Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
6/29
34 of the Indian Penal Code against the informant and other co-
accused. Elaborating Basopatti P.S. Case No. 02 of 2022 learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that one Nagendra Mandal
was a candidate of Mukhiya in the Panchayat Election of 2021
and had lost the election, and on account of this he and his
supporters Jitendra Thakur and Abhinay Thakur were extending
threat to her husband to kill. On 29.12.2021 there was an
election of Prakhand Pramukh and at 7 pm accused Nagendra
Mandal, Sanjeev Kumar, Sukmari Devi, Binde Das, Vikash Das,
Yogendra Mandal, Srimandal, Mahendra Mandal, Rajendra
Mandal, Vinod Mandal, Medi Mandal, Jitendra Thakur and
Abhinay Thakur came to the door of the informant celebrating
the victory of their candidate in the election of the Prakhand
Pramukh and Nagendra Mandal started abusing and on protest
by the informant, altercation took place in which the offence
was committed.
8. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party
No.2/informant vehemently submit that as per the allegation
made in the written report, all the ingredients of the alleged
offence are made out. Hence, allegation of malafide made by the
accused become secondary and police is duty bound to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
7/29
investigate into the subject matter of the F.I.R. and hence, the
F.I.R. cannot be quashed at this initial stage of prosecution.
Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 also submits that the case
lodged by the accused persons vide Basopatti P.S. Case No. 02
of 2022 is false and fabricated and lodged with intent to save
their skin from the present case. Moreover, the impugned F.I.R.
and the F.I.R. lodged by the accused side are based on separate
and distinct occurrence.
9. Before I proceed to consider the rival submissions
of the parties, it would be pertinent to examine the scope and
ambit of power of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC
with reference to quashing of F.I.R.
10. Section 482 CrPC saves inherent power of High
Court and it reads as follows:-
“482. Saving of inherent powers of High
Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or
affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order
under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692],
Hon’ble three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court has held as
follows in regard to quahsment of criminal proceedings under
Section 482 CrPC:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
8/29“7. The legal position is well settled that when a
prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the
test to be applied by the court is as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish
the offence. It is also for the court to take into
consideration any special features which appear in a
particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in
the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.
This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for
any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court
chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore,
no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a
criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while
taking into consideration the special facts of a case also
quash the proceeding even though it may be at a
preliminary stage.”
(Emphasis supplied)
12. State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Suppl
(1) SCC 335], delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court is
celebrated judgement on the subject and still holding the field
and consistently being followed by all Courts including the
Apex Court. Here it has been held as follows:
“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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
9/29information 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 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.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
10/29
that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should
be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and
that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not
be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint and that the
extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its
whim or caprice.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque
[(2005) 1 SCC 122] observed as follows:
“8. … It would be an abuse of process of the court to
allow any action which would result in injustice and
prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers,
court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds
that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these proceedings would
otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the
question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be
quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any
offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in
toto.”
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs.
Saroj Kumar Sahoo, [(2005) 13 SCC 540] explaining the
ambit and scope of Section 482 CrPC observed as follows:
“8. ………. While exercising the powers under the
section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or
revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though
wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution and only when such exercise is justified by the
tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
11/29exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice for the administration of which alone the courts
exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of
justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority
so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to
prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court
to allow any action which would result in injustice and
prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers the
court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds
that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these proceedings would
otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the report, the court may examine the
question of fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it
is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the
report has alleged and whether any offence is made out
even if the allegations are accepted in toto.”
(Emphasis supplied)
15. In Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd.,
[(2006) 6 SCC 736], Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as
follows:
“12. …….. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations
made in 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 the case alleged against
the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a
whole, but without examining the merits of the
allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous
analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability
or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is
warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a
complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear
abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala
fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or
where the allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
12/29
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to
stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should
be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce
the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the
necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint,
merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been
stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed.
Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the
complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are
absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil
wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil
wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing
a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also
involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a
civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding,
the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial
transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy
is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to
quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or
not.
13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a
growing tendency in business circles to convert purely
civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on
account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies
are time consuming and do not adequately protect the
interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in
several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable
breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an
impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in
a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent
settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims,
which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying
pressure through criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged…”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. In Rishipal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Another, (2014) 7 SCC 215, Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed as under:
“13. What emerges from the above judgments is that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
13/29when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be
quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to
whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the
complaint prima facie establish the case. The courts have
to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts
to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the
criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or
when the court comes to a conclusion that quashing these
proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice,
then the court can exercise the power under Section 482
CrPC. While exercising the power under the provision, the
courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation
in the complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence
or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial
court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact.”
(Emphasis supplied)
17. In Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 19 SCC 401,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has comprehensively dealt with the
ambit and scope under Section 482 Cr.PC or under Article 226
of the Constitution of India regarding quashing the
F.I.R./Complaint and has summarized the principles as follows:
“13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right
from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir
Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944
SCC OnLine PC 29: (1943-44) 71 IA 203: AIR 1945 PC
18], the following principles of law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into
cognizable offences.
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into
the cognizable offences.
13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence
or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, in the “rarest of rare
cases”. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
14/29for quashing under Section 482CrPC is not to be confused
with the norm which has been formulated in the context of
the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.)
13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing
of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the initial stage.
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping
the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the
State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The
inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to
secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the
process by Section 482CrPC
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping.
13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the
Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the
stage of investigation of offences.
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the
Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court
to act according to its whims or caprice.
13.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court should
not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police
must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would
be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy
facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law.
During or after investigation, if the investigating officer
finds that there is no substance in the application made by
the complainant, the investigating officer may file an
appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate
which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure.
13.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very
wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to
be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on
the Court.
13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it
thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing
and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
15/29
the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P.
Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR
1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
426] , has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made
by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the
power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider
whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to
consider on merits whether the allegations make out a
cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations
in the FIR.”
(Emphasis supplied)
18. In Mahendra K.C. Vs. State of Karnataka and
Another, (2022) 2 SCC 129, Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed as under:
“22. Based on the above precedent, the High Court
while exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC to
quash the FIR instituted against the second respondent-
accused should have applied the following two tests : ( i)
whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie
constitute an offence; and (ii) whether the allegations are
so improbable that a prudent man would not arrive at the
conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed with
the complaint……”
(Emphasis supplied)
19. In State Vs. M. Maridoss and Another, (2023) 4
SCC 338, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“8. Even otherwise, it is a settled position of law that
while exercising powers under Section 482CrPC, the High
Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is
required to be considered at that stage is the nature of
accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the
averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose the
commission of the cognizable offence or not.
11. As per the settled position of law, it is the right
conferred upon the investigating agency to conduct the
investigation and reasonable time should be given to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
16/29investigating agency to conduct the investigation unless it
is found that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any
cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by any
law.”
(Emphasis supplied)
20. Hon’ble Supreme Court, on several occasions,
has considered the allegation of malafide or ulterior motive
behind lodging of F.I.R. or criminal complaint in the context of
quashment of F.I.R. In this regard Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Bhajan Lal case (supra) has already observed 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, High Court may invoke
his inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the
criminal proceeding. It is also noteworthy that in Bhajan Lal
case (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has refused to quash the
F.I.R. despite the informant Dharam Pal being on inimical terms
with the accused.
21. In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 222, Hon’ble Supreme Court had again occasion to
consider the issue of malafide or ulterior motive and had held as
follows:
“22. The question of mala fide exercise of power
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
17/29
assumes significance only when the criminal prosecution
is initiated on extraneous considerations and for an
unauthorised purpose. There is no material whatsoever in
this case to show that on the date when the FIR was
lodged by R.K. Singh he was activated by bias or had any
reason to act maliciously. The dominant purpose of
registering the case against the respondents was to have an
investigation done into the allegations contained in the
FIR and in the event of there being sufficient material in
support of the allegations to present the charge-sheet
before the court. There is no material to show that the
dominant object of registering the case was the character
assassination of the respondents or to harass and humiliate
them. This Court in State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldhana
[(1980) 1 SCC 554] has held that when the information is
lodged at the police station and an offence is registered,
the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary
importance. It is the material collected during the
investigation which decides the fate of the accused person.
This Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal [1992
Supp (1) SCC 335] permitted the State Government to
hold investigation afresh against Ch. Bhajan Lal in spite
of the fact that prosecution was lodged at the instance of
Dharam Pal who was inimical towards Bhajan Lal.”
(Emphasis supplied)
22. In State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji
Kalpatri, (1996) 1 SCC 542, Hon’ble Supreme Court had
again occasion to consider the issue of malafide or ulterior
motive and had held as follows:
“22. In fact, the question of mala fides in a case like
the present is not at all relevant. If the complaint which is
made is correct and an offence had been committed which
will have to be established in a court of law, it is of no
consequence that the complainant was a person who was
inimical or that he was guilty of mala fides. If the
ingredients which establish the commission of the offence
or misconduct exist then, the prosecution cannot fail
merely because there was an animus of the complainant or
the prosecution against the accused. Allegations of mala
fides may be relevant while judging the correctness of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
18/29allegations or while examining the evidence. But the mere
fact that the complainant is guilty of mala fides, would be
no ground for quashing the prosecution. In the instant
case, specific averments of facts have been made whereby
it was alleged that the respondent had disproportionately
large assets. Mala fide intention of the appellant in
launching prosecution against the respondent with a view
to punish him cannot be a reason for preventing the court
of competent jurisdiction from examining the evidence
which may be led before it, for coming to the conclusion
whether an offence had been committed or not…..”
(Emphasis supplied)
23. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the following judgments also:
(i) Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P.,
(2017) 13 SCC 369;
(ii) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122;
(iii) State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy,
(2004) 6 SCC 522;
(iv) State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa,
(2002) 3 SCC 89.
24. In Mahmood Ali and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors., (2023) 15 SCC 488, Hon’ ble Supreme
Court has observed as follows:
“11. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused comes before
the Court invoking either the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings
quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings
are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances the court owes a duty to look into the FIR
with care and a little more closely.
12. We say so because once the complainant decides
to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance etc. then he would ensure
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
19/29that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that
the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that
they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence are disclosed or not.
13. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered
to take into account the overall circumstances leading to
the initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for
instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in the background of
such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as
alleged.”
(Emphasis supplied)
25. Hence, it emerges from the statutory provisions
and the case laws that the First Information Report can be
quashed if the uncontoroverted allegation made in the F.I.R. or
complaint do not disclose cognizable offence justifying an
investigation by the police or where the allegations made in the
FIR 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 or
where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
20/29
provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code or the concerned Act
to the institution or continuance of the proceedings or where a
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with
a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
26. It also emerges that while exercising the power
under Section 482 Cr.PC or under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the Court does not function as a Court of Appeal
or Revision. It further emerges that the F.I.R./Complaint has to
be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the
allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry, nor a meticulous analysis
of the material, nor an assessment of the reliability or
genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted,
while examining prayer for quashment of a F.I.R. In
other words, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.
27. It also emerges that the F.I.R. is not an
encyclopedia containing all details and verbatim reproducing all
the ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual
foundation is laid in the F.I.R./complaint, merely on the ground
that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the F.I.R.
could not be quashed.
28. It also emerges that the power to quash the F.I.R.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
21/29
cannot be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The
police has statutory duty and right to investigate the allgation of
cognizable offence. It also emerges that the power under Section
482 Cr.PC and Article 226 of the Constitution should be used
sparingly and with abundant caution.
29. It further emerges that when malafide or ulterior
motive is alleged by the accused in institution of the F.I.R.,
Court is duty bound to look into it and if it is manifested from
the material on record that F.I.R. has been lodged with malafide
and ulterior motive to wreak vengeance and the allegation is
frivolous and vexatious, the Court can quash the F.I.R.
However, if, as per the uncontroverted allegation, there is
disclosure of cognizable offence, the prosecution cannot be
scuttled at the initial stage. The police has to be allowed to
investigate the matter. The police has statutory right and duty to
investigate into alleged cognizable offence and the allegation of
malafide cannot be considered at the initial stage without
clinching material on record. The allegation of malafide may be
relevant while examining the evidence. But at the initial stage of
F.I.R., prosecution cannot be scuttled only on account of
allegation of malafide or ulterior motive. Mere previous
litigations or inimical relationship between the informant and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
22/29
the accused side could not be sole ground of quashing the F.I.R.
Even in Bhajan Lal case (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court had
declined to quash the F.I.R. despite the fact that the informant
Dharam Pal had inimical terms with the accused Bhajan Lal.
30. Now, the question for consideration of this Court
is whether uncontroverted allegation made in the written
report/F.I.R. constitutes cognizable offence and whether the
F.I.R. is frivolous, vexatious and prompted by malafide and
ulterior motive to wreak vengeance against the
accused/petitioner.
31. I find that the F.I.R. has been registered for
offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 379, 324, 325,307,
504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(i)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and if the
allegation is taken at face value without going into its veracity,
one can easily find that there is commission of offence
punishable under Sections 323, 341, 379, 324, 325, 307, 504,
506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
32. However, before I consider whether the
uncontroverted allegation made in the written report constitutes
any offence under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
23/29
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it would be imperative to
refer to observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court made in this
regard.
33. In Shashikant Sharma Vs. State of U.P., 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1599, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
as follows:
“14. From a bare perusal of the provision, it is crystal
clear that for the above offence to be constituted, there
must be an allegation that the accused not being a member
of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe committed an
offence under the IPC punishable for a term of 10 years or
more against a member of the Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe knowing that such person belongs to such
‘community’.”
(Emphasis supplied)
34. In Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P., (2008) 12
SCC 531, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“6. In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3
in the entire complaint is that on 27-5-2004, the
appellant abused them with the name of their caste.
According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x)
of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that
the appellant-accused was not a member of the
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he
(Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or
intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a
place within public view. In the entire complaint,
nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused
was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or
intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent 3 in a
place within public view. When the basic ingredients
of the offence are missing in the complaint, then
permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel
the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial
would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of
process of law.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
24/29
35. In Dinesh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 3 SCC
771, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“15. Sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)( v) is that an
offence must have been committed against a person on the
ground that such person is a member of the Scheduled Castes
or the Scheduled Tribes. In the instant case no evidence has
been led to establish this requirement. It is not the case of the
prosecution that the rape was committed on the victim since
she was a member of a Scheduled Caste. In the absence of
evidence to that effect, Section 3(2)(v) has no application. Had
Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act been applicable then by
operation of law, the sentence would have been imprisonment
for life and fine.”
(Emphasis supplied)
36. In Khuman Singh Vs. State of M.P., (2020) 18
SCC 763, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“14. ……The offence must have been committed against
the person on the ground that such person is a member of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case,
the fact that the deceased was belonging to “Khangar”–
Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to
show that the offence was committed only on the ground
that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and
therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.”
(Emphasis supplied)
37. In Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand,
[(2020) 10 SCC 710], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:
“18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established
merely on the fact that the informant is a member of
Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the
reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present
case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land.
The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person
who claims title over the property. If such person happens
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
25/29to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r)
of the Act is not made out.”
(Emphasis supplied)
38. In Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State
of Maharashtra, (2000) 3 SCC 557, Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed as follows:
“9. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that whoever,
not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the Penal
Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment for a term
of ten years or more against a person or property on
the ground that such person is a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property
belongs to such member, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for life and with fine. In the present
case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the
appellant committed the offence alleged against him
on the ground that the deceased is a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the
provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua
non is that the victim should be a person who belongs
to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the
offence under the Penal Code, 1860 is committed
against him on the basis that such a person belongs to
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the
absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section
3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter, we
think, both the trial court and the High Court missed
the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the
conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial
court as well as by the High Court ought to be set
aside.”
(Emphasis supplied)
39. In Swaran Singh Vs. State, [(2008) 8 SCC 435],
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the
first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by
calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which
was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this
was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
26/29a house is certainly a place within public view. It could
have been a different matter had the alleged offence been
committed inside a building, and also was not in the
public view. However, if the offence is committed outside
the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn
can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within
the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an
offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore,
not confuse the expression “place within public view”
with the expression “public place”. A place can be a
private place but yet within the public view. On the other
hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which
is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality
(or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality
of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.”
(Emphasis supplied)
40. In State of U.P. Vs. Naresh, [(2011) 4 SCC 324],
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“32. It is a settled legal proposition that an FIR is not an
encyclopaedia of the entire case. It may not and need not
contain all the details ……”
(Emphasis supplied)
41. In Ashabai Machindra Adhagale Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2009) 3 SCC 789], Hon’ ble Supreme Court
has observed as follows:
“10. It needs no reiteration that the FIR is not expected to
be an encyclopædia. As rightly contended by learned
counsel for the appellant whether the accused belongs to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe can be gone into
when the matter is being investigated. …………………..
12. After ascertaining the facts during the course of
investigation it is open to the investigating officer to
record that the accused either belongs to or does not
belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. After final
opinion is formed, it is open to the court to either accept
the same or take cognizance. Even if the charge-sheet is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
27/29filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it is open
to the accused to bring to the notice of the court that the
materials do not show that the accused does not belong to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Even if charge is
framed at the time of trial materials can be placed to show
that the accused either belongs or does not belong to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.”
(Emphasis supplied)
42. As such, it emerges that to constitute an offence
punishable under the SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989, there must be
an allegation that the Accused belongs to other than Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe Community and he has committed the
offence against the Victim because he belongs to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe Community. The offence should have
been also committed at a place in public view. Though the FIR
is not an encyclopedia to contain all the details of the alleged
offence, the FIR read with the charge-sheet must contain all the
ingredients of the alleged offence, failing which the criminal
proceedings would be liable to be quashed. Similarly, in case of
a criminal complaint, the complaint read with the statements of
the complainant and his witnesses during enquiry under Section
200 CrPC must fulfill all the ingredients of the alleged offence,
failing which continuance of the criminal proceeding would be
abuse of the process of the court and miscarriage of justice.
43. Coming to the case on hand, I find that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
28/29
informant has been subjected to the offence on account of the
informant being a harijan or a member of the scheduled caste
with intent to humiliate him and this humiliation has taken place
in public view of the co-villagers. Hence, in view of the
aforesaid allegation, offence is prima facie made out under the
SC/ST Act.
44. However, one may find that there is no direct
allegation in the written report/F.I.R. that the accused
persons/petitioners belong to other than Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes communities. But if one reads between the
lines, one finds that there is clear implication/indication as per
the alleged facts and circumstances that the accused/petitioners
belong to other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
community. Here, it is also relevant to point out that the F.I.R.
is not an encyclopedia containing all details of the allegation
and it is open to the Investigating Officer to do investigation
regarding the social status of the accused/petitioners and record
whether they belong to other than Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes community or not.
45. Even allegation of malafide or ulterior motive of
the informant in lodging the impugned F.I.R. on account of
inimical relationship between the informant and the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 17102 of 2023 dt.07-01-2025
29/29
side cannot help the petitioners at this initial stage. Only after
investigation, the Court could be in position to examine such
allegation of the accused/petitioners. Only previous litigation or
inimical terms between the parties could not be sole ground for
quashing the F.I.R. Investigation has to follow to unearth the
truth regarding alleged cognizable offence. It may be pointed
out that Hon’ble Apex Court had refused to quash the F.I.R in
Bhajan Lal Case (supra) despite the fact that the informant
Dharampal was on inimical terms with the accused Bhajan Lal
and had allowed fresh investigation.
46. Hence, in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I find no merit in the present petition and,
accordingly, it is dismissed.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/S.Ali-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 12.08.2024. Uploading Date 07.01.2025 Transmission Date 07.01.2025