Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ranjay Kumar Verma @ Ranju And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 4108 Patna

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4108 Patna
Judgement Date : 26 June, 2024

Patna High Court

Ranjay Kumar Verma @ Ranju And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 26 June, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Sinha

Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42160 of 2018
        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-511 Year-2017 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE
                                         District- Nalanda
     ======================================================
1.    Ranjay Kumar Verma @ Ranju S/o Late Deoki Nandan Prasad,
2.   Alakhdeo Prasad S/o Late Behaso Mahto,
3.   Dinesh Kumar S/o Mahabir Mahto,
4.   Satyendra @ Sato Prasad @ Sato Kumar S/o Late Ramchandra Mahto,
5.   Ashok Prasad S/o Gobind Mahto, All R/o Vill.- Paharpura, P.S.- Bihar,
     Distt.- Nalanda.

                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   The State Of Bihar
2.   Sidhnath Prasad S/o Late Mohan Mahto, R/o Vill.- Paharpur, P.S.- Bihar,
     Distt.- Nalanda.

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr.Sanjeev Kumar
     For the Opposite Party/s :    Mr. Manoj Kumar
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 26-06-2024

              1. The petitioners have filed the present application for

      quashing of the order of cognizance dated 22.03.2018 passed by

      the learned C.J.M., Nalanda at Biharsharif in Complaint Case

      No. 511-C of 2017 arising out of Bihar P.S. Case No. 280 of

      2016 whereby cognizance under Section 379 I.P.C. has been

      taken against the petitioners.

              2. On 25.06.2016 at 4:00 P.M. the complainant / informant

      submitted a written report before the Police stating therein that

      on 18.06.2016 the Opposite Party No. 2 had gone to his field in
 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42160 of 2018 dt.26-06-2024
                                            2/8




         order to see the potato crops where he found that all the accused

         persons / petitioners along with 15-16 unknown persons were

         indulged in the loot of potatoes standing in 14 Kathas of the

         informant's land. When the informant protested and prevented

         the accused persons from looting the potato produce, Ranjay

         Kumar Verma (i.e. petitioner no. 1) on gun point threatened the

         informant that if they would be prevented from taking away the

         potato, the informant would be killed. It has also been stated

         that in the past also the informant has lodged a case against the

         petitioner no. 1 / Ranjay Kumar Verma and his brothers.

                  3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for an

         occurrence which has allegedly taken place on 18.06.2016 the

         F.I.R. has been lodged on 25.06.2016 on the basis of a

         concocted story. The Police investigated the matter and

         submitted final form not sending the petitioners for trial with the

         finding that accusation against the petitioners are untrue. The

         Police also recommended for initiating prosecution against the

         informant / opposite party no. 2 under Sections 182 / 211 of the

         I.P.C.

                  4. The informant had filed a protest petition in connection

         with Bihar P.S. Case No. 280 of 2016 which was numbered as

         Complaint Case No. 511-C of 2017 and after examining the
 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42160 of 2018 dt.26-06-2024
                                            3/8




         complainant and four witnesses cognizance has been taken

         against the petitioners under Section 379 I.P.C.

                 5. Learned counsel further submits that Police in his final

         form has categorically stated that petitioners have been

         implicated at the behest of some other persons. The wife of

         petitioner no. 1 is the Ward Councillor and the petitioners have

         been implicated on the basis of political rivalry and village

         dispute.

                 6. Referring to Annexure-1 which is the First Information

         Report bearing Bihar P.S. Case No. 280 / 2016, learned counsel

         submits that on 18.03.2016 the opposite party no. 2 filed a

         petition before the District Magistrate, Nalanda stating therein

         that the accused persons / petitioners destroyed the potatoes

         which were standing in the field of the informant for which

         Bihar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2016 has been lodged and accordingly

         a sum of Rs. 1,00000/- was demanded by the informant /

         opposite party no. 2 from the District Magistrate, Nalanda by

         way of compensation. The F.I.R. bearing Bihar P.S. Case No. 23

         of 2016 alleging destruction of potato crop was lodged on

         16.01.2016

and the informant sought compensation from the

District Magistrate on 18.03.2016 which is the harvesting

season of potato crop.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42160 of 2018 dt.26-06-2024

7. Learned counsel submits that potato plantation starts in

October-November and it is harvested from January to March. It

is specific case of the informant in the F.I.R. bearing Bihar P.S.

Case No. 23 of 2016 and in his petition for compensation before

the District Magistrate, Nalanda that in March itself the potato

crops were destroyed by the petitioners. In the present F.I.R.

lodged on 25.06.2016 allegation has been levelled against the

petitioners that on 18.06.2016 the potato crops were looted by

petitioners.

8. Upon joint reading of the allegation made in the first

F.I.R., the petition filed by the informant for compensation

before the District Magistrate, Nalanda and the statement made

in the present F.I.R. bearing Bihar P.S. Case No. 280 of 2016 it

would be evident that a contradictory allegation has been made

against the petitioners inasmuch as once the potato crops were

destroyed in January / March itself, there is no question of the

same being again destroyed in June, 2016. The protest- cum-

complaint petition has been filed without any supporting

affidavit in order to harass the petitioners for political rivalry

and the learned Magistrate without appreciating the facts in

totality has taken cognizance against the petitioners under

Section 379 of the I.P.C. mechanically.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42160 of 2018 dt.26-06-2024

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite

Party No. 2 opposed the prayer for quashing and submits that

petitioner no. 1 is a person of criminal background. Petitioner

no. 1 is having criminal antecedent of thirteen cases which has

been mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite

party no. 2. Learned counsel further submits that the

Investigating Officer in both the cases i.e. Bihar P.S. Case No.

23 of 2016 and Bihar P.S. Case No. 280 of 2016 are the same.

On 18.06.2016 the informant went to the Police Station for

lodging F.I.R. but the local Police Station refused to take F.I.R.

On 21.06.2016 the I.O. of Bihar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2016 issued

notice to all the accused persons under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C.

and on 23.06.2016 the accused persons including the petitioner

no. 1 furnished personal bond in terms of Section 41(2) Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, the informant approached the S.P., Nalanda in his

Janta Darbar and the present F.I.R. has been lodged on

25.06.2016 and the complainant / informant is seventy eight

years old person and has supported the allegation made in the

protest- cum- complaint petition on S.A. and four witnesses

have also supported the allegation against the petitioners.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners in reply submits

that due to political reason eleven cases were lodged against the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42160 of 2018 dt.26-06-2024

petitioner no. 1 out of which cognizance has been taken against

the petitioner no. 1 in four cases and other cases have been

dropped and final form has been submitted.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the materials available on record. From perusal of the

allegation made in the F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party no. 2

on 16.01.2016 bearing Bihar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2016 it appears

that the opposite party no. 2 has alleged damage of his potato

crop by the petitioners complaining that the petitioners forcibly

stopped irrigation facility in the field of the opposite party no. 2

as such the potato crops worth about Rs. 100000/- were

damaged.

12. The petitioners have submitted that plantation season

of potato crop is in the month of October- November and

harvesting takes place in March - April. This fact is not disputed

by the other side.

13. As per the first version of the opposite party no. 2 /

informant the potato crops were damaged due to forcible action

of the petitioners in March itself for which the opposite party

no. 2 sought compensation before the District Magistrate,

Nalanda, Bihar Sharif by filing an application on 18.03.2016

which was subsequently refused by the District Magistrate vide Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42160 of 2018 dt.26-06-2024

letter dated 05.09.2016 on the ground that potato crops have

been damaged due to the personal dispute between the

petitioners and the informant.

14. It is also a fact that the matter was investigated by the

Police and the Police after thorough investigation found the case

lodged against the petitioners as untrue and submitted final form

not sending the petitioners for trial.

15. Taking into consideration the two versions made in the

first F.I.R. lodged by the informant / opposite party no. 2 and the

present F.I.R., this Court is of the opinion that complaint has

been filed in abuse of the process of the Court and the learned

Magistrate has taken cognizance without application of judicial

mind and in a mechanical manner.

16. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to quash the order

taking cognizance dated 22.03.2018 passed in Complaint Case

No. 511-C of 2017.

17. At this stage, a request was made to the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.

25,000/- as litigation and other cost incurred by the opposite

party no. 2 on the ground that the opposite party no. 2 is a poor

farmer.

18. Learned counsel without prejudice to right and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42160 of 2018 dt.26-06-2024

contention of the petitioners agrees to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the

complainant / opposite party no. 2 within three weeks.

19. In the result, the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by

learned C.J.M., Nalanda at Biharsharif in Complaint Case No.

511-C of 2017 arising out of Bihar P.S. Case No. 280 of 2016 is

quashed.

20. It is made clear that if a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is not

paid by the petitioners to the opposite party no. 2 within the

aforesaid time, the opposite party no. 2 shall be at liberty to file

a petition for revival of this quashing application.





                                                (Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-AFR
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          28-06-2024
Transmission Date       28-06-2024
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter