[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Nutan Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 9 December, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23922 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1069 Year-2023 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna
======================================================
1. Nutan Devi W/o Ravi Kumar @ Raj Vanshi Kumar R/o Mohalla - Saguna
Naya Tola, Near Matth, P.S. - Danapur. Dist. - Patna
2. Priyanka Devi W/o Raj Balabh Ray R/o Mohalla - Saguna Naya Tola, Near
Matth, P.S. - Danapur. Dist. - Patna
3. Pinky Devi W/o Pramod Kumar R/o Mohalla - Saguna Naya Tola, Near
Matth, P.S. - Danapur. Dist. - Patna
4. Raj Nandani Devi @ Raj Nandani W/o Ravindra Kumar R/o Mohalla -
Saguna Naya Tola, Near Matth, P.S. - Danapur. Dist. - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Kahkashan Alam, Advocate
Ms. Akanksha Verma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-12-2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have preferred application under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order taking cognizance
dated 10.01.2024 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-1 st, Danapur in
connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 1069 of 2023, by which
learned A.C.J.M.-1st, Danapur has taken cognizance of offence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23922 of 2024 dt.09-12-2025
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325 and 307 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioner
along with other accused persons, had assaulted the informant
causing injuries. Specific allegation against petitioners is that
they had pelted stone and bricks from the rooftop, upon the
informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners and informant side are
agnates and due to enmity with respect to the share in mall and
shop, the ugly incidence took place, in which, both the parties
indulged in free fight causing injury to either side. He further
submitted that from very perusal of the FIR, it is evident that
general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against the
petitioner, who are female members of the same family and no
case is made out against them and if they are allowed to face
prosecution, the same will be abuse of process of law. In support
of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon paragraph no.
102 (2) of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
The State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp
1 SCC 335.
5. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23922 of 2024 dt.09-12-2025
the State submitted that there is no infirmity in the order taking
cognizance against the petitioners, who were active member of
the mob and they, with a common intention to cause injury, had
given effect to the incidence, in which, several persons
including the informant sustained grievous injury. The
cognizance has been taken on the basis of materials, which have
come in course of investigation and interfering with the trial at
this stage is unwarranted.
6. Heard the parties.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation
contained in the FIR, I find that specific allegation has been
made against other family members of the petitioners but the
allegation against these petitioners is that they together, had
started pelting stone on the informant and his family members
causing injury to them. In absence of any specific allegation
against the petitioners, I don't find that any case under Sections
147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code
is made out. At the same time, in absence of cognizance having
been taken under Section 324, it cannot be said that there was
common intention to kill the informant to attract the allegation
under Section 307.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23922 of 2024 dt.09-12-2025
8. In this regard, I find it apt to take note of the
observation made by the Apex Court recently in case of
Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported
in (2025) 4 SCC 78 in para-11 to 20, which are reproduced
hereinafter:
"11. Before we apply this judgment to
the facts, it will be worthwhile to recall the
observations of Sikri, J. in Narinder Singh
(supra):-
"26. Having said so, we would hasten to add that
though it is a serious offence as the accused
person(s) attempted to take the life of another
person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be
oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever
there is a quarrel between the parties leading to
physical commotion and sustaining of injury by
either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give
it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as
well..."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Coming back to Laxmi Narayan (supra), this
Court has held that mere mention of Section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge-sheet should not be the
basis for adopting a hands-off approach. It has
further held that it would be open for the court to
examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307
IPC is there for the sake of it or whether there is
evidence to back it. It has been held that the courts
may go by the nature of injuries sustained; as to
whether the injuries are inflicted on the vital/
delicate parts of the body and the nature of weapon
used. It has also been clarified that such an exercise
would be permissible after investigation and filing
of chargesheet/framing of charges or during the
trial. [See 15.4 of Laxmi Narayan (supra)].
13. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, there
is a settlement between the parties. The case filed by
the appellants' party which was prior in point of
time and that too on the same day of occurrence,
has been settled.
14. It should be recalled that, at the outset, after
investigation, the police actually closed the case in
its final report of 07.09.1991. It was the trial Court,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23922 of 2024 dt.09-12-2025
which by its order of 05.09.1992, refused to accept
the same and summoned the appellants. The
incident is of 11.08.1991, i.e. about 33½ years back.
No doubt, there is a reference to the firing in the FIR
but admittedly there was no injury. The allegation is
that firing was done by Abdul Waris. He is since
deceased. The facts, assuming to be true, also do not
make out a case of common object for the appellants
under Section 149 IPC insofar as the offence of
Section 307 is concerned.
15. The role attributed to the seven members,
including the five appellants is not specific. General
allegation was that they abused in filthy language
and assaulted Mahmood with lathi and iron bars.
The specific individual role was only attributed to
Adbul Waris, who is since deceased.
16. In any event, the police who investigated
disbelieved the entire story. No recoveries have been
made of any pellets. What engaged the attention of
the High Court was only the fracture of the head of
the distal phalanx of left finger of respondent No.2.
17. We have seen the injuries sustained by
Mahmood (R-2) from the medical evidence
collected. From the injury report, it is clear that
while the first four injuries were contusions and
abrasions, injury Nos. 5, 6 and 7 pertained to
incised lacerated wound and swelling on the middle
finger of the left hand. We have also seen the x-ray
report which shows that in the left hand there was a
fracture of the head of distal phalanx of left ring
finger. Assuming that this was the result of injury
with lathis or iron bar, applying the test in Laxmi
Narayan (supra), considering the injury and the
nature of the weapon used, certainly no offence
under Section 307 IPC is made out.
18. Section 307 of IPC reads as under:-
"307. Attempt to murder.-
Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he
by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt
is caused to any person by such act, the offender
shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to
such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.- When any person
offending under this section is under sentence of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23922 of 2024 dt.09-12-2025
imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be
punished with death."
19. Keeping in mind the surrounding circumstances,
the nature of the weapon and the nature of the
injury, on facts, we are inclined to conclude that the
overt act attributed to the appellants does not bring
the case within the four corners of the Section 307
of IPC, either on a stand-alone basis or as held
above with the aid of Section 149 of IPC.
20. We are also inclined to conclude that
considering the overall circumstances, the nature of
the weapon and the nature of the injury (fracture of
the head of distal phalanx of left ring finger), the
offence alleged, on facts, does not fall in that
category of cases where the court should deny relief
in the event of a settlement. At the highest, the
offence alleged could be one under Section 326 of
IPC. It could not be said, on facts, considering all
the circumstances that this is a crime which has
such an harmful effect on the public and that it has
the effect of seriously threatening the well-being of
the society. We make it clear that we are saying so
on the facts of the present case. We are also firmly of
the opinion that proceeding with the trial, when
parties have amicably resolved the dispute in the
present case, would be futile and the ends of justice
require that the settlement be given effect to by
quashing the proceedings. It would be a grave abuse
of process to let this trial remain pending under the
above circumstances, particularly when the dispute
is settled and resolved."
9. Turning to the facts of the instant case and
keeping in view the contents of the FIR, the allegation leveled
against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature, and
considering the fact that the court cannot be oblivious to hard
realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between
the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of
injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it
a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC, the order taking
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23922 of 2024 dt.09-12-2025
cognizance in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 1069 of
2023, is hereby quashed and set-aside to the extent it relates to
the petitioners.
10. However, this Court making an observation that
the parties, who are family members, shall not indulged into
frivoulous litigation to harass each other.
11. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 13.12.2025
Transmission Date 13.12.2025
