Patna High Court
Naman Kumar @ Abhinav Krishna vs The State Of Bihar on 4 March, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64356 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2021 Thana- GARDANIBAG District- Patna
======================================================
1. Naman Kumar @ Abhinav Krishna, Minor under the guardianship of his
mother namely, Smt. Kiran Kumari, D/o Ras Bihari Singh, S/O- Sri Binay
Krishna, R/O-Mohalla-Shivaji Path, Yarpur, P.S.-Gardanibag, Distt.-Patna.
2. Binay Krishna, Son of Late Banarasi Singh Vijayee, R/O-Mohalla-Shivaji
Path, Yarpur, P.S-Gardanibag, Dist.-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Shankar Kumar @ Shankar Kumar Ram Son of Late Ramesh Prasad R/O-
Mohalla- Yarpur Shivaji Path, Rajputana, P.S-Gardanibag, Dist.-Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ansul, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sukla, Advocate
Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ankit, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04.03.2025
The present quashing petition preferred to quash
the Gardanibagh (Patna) P.S. Case No. 118/2021 dated
22.03.2021
, lodged for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
The aforesaid FIR was lodged on the basis of written report of
the informant/opposite party no. 2, namely Shankar Kumar
@ Shankar Kumar Ram.
2. The brief case of prosecution, as it appears from
the written report of the informant/opposite party no. 2 made
before Gardanibagh Police Station on 22.03.2021 that on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64356 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
2/12
20.03.2021 at about 6:00 PM his son, namely, Shivam
Kumar while going to purchase some goods from a nearby
shop, the son of petitioner no. 2 namely, Naman Kumar, who
is aged about 14 years has dashed him with his scooty, where
petitioner no. 2 was sitting as a pillion rider. It is alleged that
after the said occurrence, both father and son together
assaulted the son of the informant/opposite party no. 2 badly.
It is also alleged that both petitioners usually assault the
children of the locality, while playing. It is submitted that
petitioner no. 2 created a havoc in society being an advocate
of the Patna High Court. It is stated that the son of opposite
party no. 2 during his treatment succumbed to his injuries
and, as such, it was requested to take strict action against
both petitioners, if possible to hang both of them.
3. Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.
Ansul, learned Senior Counsel while arguing on behalf of
petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution story
maliciously hatched up by anti social element of the locality
who are in inimical terms with petitioner no. 2. It is submitted
that the opposite party no. 2 as feeling difficulty in trade of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64356 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
3/12
illicit and spurious liquor, named petitioner no. 2 who is a
sincere and a regular practitioner of this Court since 2002 and
presently he is Special Public Prosecutor (SC/ST) in Patna
High Court, whereas petitioner no. 1 is his minor son. In this
context, it is submitted that alleged occurrence took place on
20.03.2021 at about 6:10 PM but the information to the
police has been given on 22.03.2021 after two days when son
of opposite party no. 2 died during treatment. It is pointed out
that while playing together, the son of opposite party no. 2
entered into scuffle with other childrens playing there
including the son of opposite party no. 2, where he fell to the
ground and received bodily injuries to which he succumbed
during treatment in hospital but as an afterthought to get
claim under the Motor Vehicle Act, the occurrence which took
place amongst the children, was given colour of an intentional
hitting by scooty for which present FIR was lodged under
Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Ansul, learned senior
counsel that if the version of FIR be taken on its face then it
can be said safely that by using scooty the son of opposite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64356 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
4/12
party no. 2 was dashed, therefore, it was not even the
accident, rather it was something which made intentional but
police registered a case under Section 304A of the Indian
Penal Code. It is pointed out that the informant/opposite
party no. 2 projected himself as an eyewitness of the
occurrence but he could not pointed out the registration
number of the scooty. This is not a case of the informant that
the scooty registration plate was not available, or after hitting
with scooty, petitioners ran away, which in itself make the
case of opposite party no. 2/prosecution doubtful.
5. Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior counsel arguing
further submitted that the son of opposite party no. 2 died
during his treatment out of “Septicemia” and just to grab the
money from petitioners, he was implicated falsely with the
occurrence which was never taken place in the manner as it
was informed through FIR in issue to local police.
6. Mr. Shahi, in this context, further submitted that
the petitioner no. 1 who is the son of petitioner no. 2 on the
date of occurrence i.e. on 20.03.2021 was less than 12 years
of age and, therefore, protected under Section 83 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64356 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
5/12
7. It is jointly submitted by both learned senior
counsels Mr. Shahi and Mr. Ansul that the oblique motive can
be gathered easily from the face of FIR as opposite party no.
2 prayed through FIR itself a sentence of hanging for both
these petitioners. While concluding argument, learned senior
counsels relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme
Court as available through Neeharika Infrastructure
Private Limited Vs State of Maharashtra & Others
reported through (2021) 19 SCC 401, and also State of
Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in
1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, and
submitted that no cognizable case appears made out against
petitioners from facial perusal of FIR, rather the present FIR
was lodged out of oblique and ulterior motive due to
neighbourhood differences and jealous approach. It is pointed
out that the written report also suggest that petitioner no. 2
and petitioner no. 1 usually physically assaulted the childrens
of the locality while they were playing by closing them inside
the room but no such complaint was made ever against these
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64356 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
6/12
petitioners by any of neighbours or parents of any such
children before the present occurrence.
8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Anil
Kumar while opposing the quashing petition pointed out that
opposite party no. 2 is the eyewitness of the occurrence,
where allegation of dashing is available against Naman
Kumar, who as per available documents appears less than 12
years on the date of occurrence. It is pointed out that the
deceased was also 12 years old son of opposite party no. 2.
9. It would be apposite to reproduce the para no.
57 of the Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Case
(supra), which reads as under:-
“57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court,
right from the decision of the Privy Council in the
case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the
following principles of law emerge:
i) 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;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into
the cognizable offences;
iii) 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;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64356 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
7/12sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of
rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in
its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. 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);
v) 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;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled
at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) 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 482 Cr. P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) 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;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court
do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court
to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64356 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
8/12
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;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 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;
xiv) 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 the parameters laid down by this
Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and
Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash
the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for
quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused,
the court when it exercises the power under
Section 482 Cr. P.C., 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.”
10. It would be further apposite to re-produce para
102 of the Bhajan Lal case (supra), which reads as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64356 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
9/12Chapter 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64356 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
10/12reach 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.”
11. It would further be apposite to reproduce
Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:-
“83. Act of a Child above seven and under
Twelve of immature understanding.- Nothing is an
offence which is done by a child above seven years
of age and under twelve, who has not attained
sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of
the nature and consequences of his conduct on
that occasion.”
12. From the perusal of record, it appears that as
per FIR, the name of son of petitioner no. 2 was disclosed as
Naman Kumar, aged about 14 years, whereas as per
Annexure-3, which is a birth certificate of petitioner no. 1, it
appears that his name is Abhinav Krishna and his date of birth
is 23.03.2009. Aforesaid certificate was issued by department
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64356 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
11/12
of Planning and Development, Government of Bihar, dated
22.02.20213. As per aforesaid certificate, the petitioner no. 1
on the date of occurrence was three days short of 12 years.
13. Opposite party no. 2 claimed himself as an
eyewitness of the occurrence. He is the resident of same
locality. He appears well acquainted with petitioner no. 1 and
petitioner no. 2. Despite of all such acquaintance he could not
named petitioner no. 1 correctly and said the name of
petitioner no. 1 as “Naman Kumar” instead of “Abhinav
Krishna”. Being eye witness, he narrated through FIR that
after alleged occurrence of dashing by scooty, some assault
was made by petitioners but he could not noted the
registration number of said scooty which prima facie negate
the entire allegation of dashing by any scooter on its face.
There is no allegation against petitioner no. 2, who said to be
a pillion rider at the time of occurrence, even qua any
instigation to petitioner no.1 being minor son as to dash the
son of opposite party no. 2.
14. Hence, in the want of scooty number, correct
name and also in absence of any instigation qua petitioner no.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64356 of 2024 dt.04-03-2025
12/12
2, the occurrence cannot be believed on its face by any
prudent man to make out a cognizable offence as narrated
through written information of opposite party no. 2.
Admittedly, petitioner no. 2 is an advocate. FIR in itself
suggestive of neighbourhood disputes and differences to
import ulterior and oblique motive.
15. This case appears covers against guideline
nos. 1, 5 and 7 of Bhajan Lal‘s case (Supra).
16. Accordingly, Gardanibag (Patna) P.S. Case No.
118/2021 dated 22.03.2021 and the entire proceeding
arising thereof qua petitiuoners is hereby quashed.
17. Let copy of this order be sent to the trial court,
without delay.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 13.02.2025 Uploading Date 04.03.2025 Transmission Date 04.03.2025
[ad_1]
Source link