Patna High Court
Dilip Kumar Yadav @ Dilip Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85714 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2020 Thana- MOHANIYA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. Dilip Kumar Yadav @ Dilip Kumar Son of Late Ram Awadhesh Singh
Resident of Village - Lurpurwan, P.S. Mohania, District - Kaimur at
Bhabhua.
2. Deepak Kumar Yadav @ Deepak Kumar Son of Late Ram Awadhesh Singh
Resident of Village - Lurpurwan, P.S. Mohania, District - Kaimur at
Bhabhua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vinod Kumar Sri Niwas Singh R/O-Lurpurwan P.S-Mohania, Dist-Kaimur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anshul, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nilendu Kr. Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-05-2025
Heard Mr. Anshul, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Nilendu
Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.
2. This application pressed for quashing of
order dated 16.02.2022, passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua in G.R. No. 27 of
2020, arising out of Mohania P.S. Case No. 07 of 2020,
by which learned Magistrate rejected the petition filed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85714 of 2023 dt.09-05-2025
2/11
u/s 190 of Cr.PC pressed on behalf of the petitioners,
challenging taking cognizance u/s 307 of IPC.
3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on
02.01.2020
in morning at 7 AM while informant was
coming to his house on motorcycle and so when he
reached at the house of one Ramdayal Singh, his
motorcycle was surrounded by the accused persons and
was told that he could not use the road in-front of their
house. When it was opposed by the informant, the
accused persons were started to abuse and thereafter
assault was made using lathi by accused Ram Awadhesh
Singh and Ram Dayal Singh and other accused persons
assaulted with fist and slaps. The accused persons
snatched the cash of Rs.700/- from him. Thereafter the
informant's uncle went to their house for complaining
about the occurrence but he was also abused and chased
by showing gun, video of which was captured by event
videographed by mobile. It is further stated that
previously, the accused persons stolen hi-electric motor
pump but due to interference of local villagers, no case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85714 of 2023 dt.09-05-2025
was lodged against accused persons. They also
threatened to kill informant by dashing from vehicle.
4. Mr. Anshul, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
order of cognizance against petitioners appears bad in
the eyes of law as same was passed without considering
available materials. In support of his submission it is
pointed out that the petitioner appears to be implicated
only for the reasons that they are son of Ram Awadhesh
Singh against whom the allegations of assault is
available during the occurrence but interestingly after
investigations police exonerated him making entire
occurrence doubtful on its face. It is submitted that the
maximum allegation appears against petitioner, out of
perusal of FIR is abusing to the informant out of
neighborhood dispute and differences arising out of use
of pathway. It is submitted by Mr. Anshul, that facing
trauma of criminal prosecutions that to for a heinous
offence like 307 IPC, with such an absurd allegation not
appears justified and in support of his submission he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85714 of 2023 dt.09-05-2025
relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as
available through State of Haryana and Others vs.
Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1)
Supreme Court Cases 335 and Salib @ Shalu @
Salim vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2023
SCC OnLine SC 947 and Jage Ram & Others vs.
State of Haryana reported in(2015) 11 SCC 366 .
5. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, could not
disputed the submissions as advanced by learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, it is
submitted that the materials available on records would
not appreciate in its probative terms at this stage.
6. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant
Paragraph No. 26 of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim case
(supra) which reads as:-
"26. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85714 of 2023 dt.09-05-2025
FIR with care and a little more closely. 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 that 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. 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 482 of the CrPC 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."
7. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant
Paragraph No. 102 of Bhajan Lal case (supra) which
reads as:-
"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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85714 of 2023 dt.09-05-2025
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85714 of 2023 dt.09-05-2025
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."
8. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant
Paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of Jage Ram case (supra)
which reads as:-
"12. For the purpose of conviction under Section
307 IPC, the prosecution has to establish (i) the
intention to commit murder; and (ii) the act done
by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution
that the accused had attempted to commit the
murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the
accused person intended to commit murder of
another person would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. To justify a
conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not
essential that fatal injury capable of causing
death should have been caused. Although the
nature of injury actually caused may be of
assistance in coming to a finding as to the
intention of the accused, such intention may also
be adduced from other circumstances. The
intention of the accused is to be gathered from
the circumstances like the nature of the weapon
used, words used by the accused at the time of
the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the
body where the injury was caused and the nature
of injury and severity of the blows given, etc.
13. In State of M.P. v. Kashiram [State of M.P.
v. Kashiram, (2009) 4 SCC 26 : (2009) 2 SCC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85714 of 2023 dt.09-05-2025
(Cri) 40 : AIR 2009 SC 1642] , the scope of
intention for attracting conviction under Section
307 IPC was elaborated and it was held as under:
(SCC pp. 29-30, paras 12-13)
"12. ... '13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction
under Section 307 if there is present an intent
coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.
It is not essential that bodily injury capable of
causing death should have been inflicted. The
section makes a distinction between the act of
the accused and its result, if any. The court has
to see whether the act, irrespective of its result,
was done with the intention or knowledge and
under circumstances mentioned in the section.
Therefore, an accused charged under Section
307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the
injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature
of a simple hurt."
9. I have perused the records carefully and
gone through the evidences available on record and also
considered the rival submissions as canvassed by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
10. It would be apposite to reproduce FIR for
better understanding of the fact qua allegations against
the petitioner, which reads as under:-
"fuosnu iwoZd dguk gS fd eSa fcuksn dqekj firk Jh
fuokl flag xzke&yqjiqjok¡ iks0&lksuth Fkkuk&eksgfu;k¡ dk LFkkbZ
fuoklh gw¡ vkt fnukad& 02@01@2020 dks lqcg djhc 07-00 lqcg
vius Mk;jh dk nw/k nsdj czge th ds ikl ls eksVj lkbZfdy ls ?kj
vk jgs FksA fd jksM ls jken;ky flag ds ?kj ds lkeus vk;s rks esjk
eksVjlkbZfdy 1&jke vo/ks"k flag is0 Lo0 l[kjt 2&nhid dqekj
3&fnyhi dqekj nksuks is0 jke vo/ks"k flag 4&jken;ky flag is0 Lo0
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85714 of 2023 dt.09-05-2025
l[kjt flag 5&larks'k dqekj is0 jke n;ky flag 6&jke ,dcky flag
is0 Lo l[kjt flag lHkh lk0&yqjiwjoka Fkkuk&eksgfu;ka ftyk&dSewj
eq>s ?ksj fy;k rFkk cksyk dh esjs ?kj ds lkeus ls jksM ls ugha tkruk
gSA nl esa cksys dh jkLrk ljdkjh jksM gSA D;ksa ugha tk;asxsA blh ij
mDr yksx xkyh XykSt nsus yxsA xkyh nsus ls euk fd;k rks jke
vo/ks"k flag ,oa jke n;ky flag viuk gkFk esa fy, ykBh ls eq>s ekj
fn;s rFkk mDr lHkh yksx yIiM+ FkIiM+ ls ekj ihV fd;s rFkk nq/k
Mk;jh ij nsdj lkr ¼07½ lkS :i;k fy;s FksA mDr lHkh yksx feydj
fNu fy, tc ge ?kj ij vkdj ;g ckr crk;s rks esjk pkpk iwNus ds
fy, vk;s rks mudks Hkh xkyh XykSt nsus yxk rFkk jke vo/ks"k flag ds
i{k esa j[kthr flag is0 Lo0 jkt ukjk;.k flag lk0&dqjiqjoka viuk
ykbZlsalh cUnqd fudky dj ekjus nkSM+s ftldk eSa eksckbZy esa QksVks
fy, gSaA iwoZ esa Hkh ikuh dk fctyh e"khu pksjh fd;s FksA ysfdu xk¡o
lekt ds dgus ij mDr yksxksa ds fo:) dksbZ vkosnu ugha fn, esjs ?
kj ds yksx fn;sA rFkk /kedh nsrs gSa fd esjk xkM+h gS p<+k nsaxs dqN
ugha fcxkM+sxkA
vr% Jheku ls vuqjks/k gS fd mDr lHkh ij
dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djus dh d`ik dh tk;A "
11. It appears from the perusal of FIR that the
allegation of assault is available against the father of
petitioners namely, Ram Awadhesh Singh and also one
Ram Dayal Singh, where during the course of occurrence
the informant received the injuries which is quoted
below:-
"Vinod Kumar, 21 yr, s/o Shree Niwas Singh,
Village- Luspurwa, P.S.- Mohania, Dist.-
Kaimur at 06:30PM on 04.01.20 at Sub-
divisional Hospital, Mohania wide
E/20/04.01.20 and found following injury on
his on his person.
(1) A Lacerated wound on the Posterior
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85714 of 2023 dt.09-05-2025
Parietal: Scalp - 1 ½" x 1/4x 1/4 fresh red
clot present.
(2) An abrasion on the dorsum of the left
foot. 1 ½" x 1 ½"x super fiemal skin fresh
red in color.
Age- Both within 6 hours.
Cause- Both by hard and blunt object.
Nature- No. 1 opinion reserved till x-ray or
CT scan report is available
No. 2 is simple.
M/s- A mole on the left cheek."
12. As per record, after investigation of this
case police exonerated main co-accused Ram Awadhesh
Singh considering the fact that at the time of occurrence
he was on duty through charge-sheet no. 252 of 2021
dated 30.04.2021, making entire allegation doubtful on
its face.
13. Admittedly the petitioners were not
involved in physical assault and therefore by taking note
of Jage Ram case (supra) it can be safely arrived that
no prima-facie case appears made out against Section
307 against petitioner. Allegation of section 379 and
323 of IPC also not appears available against petitioners
as per FIR.
14. Taking aforesaid aspects and the materials
which is of "sterling in nature", it can be safely said that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85714 of 2023 dt.09-05-2025
no cognizable offence for which cognizance was taken
against petitioners prima-facie made out, and therefore,
the cognizance order qua petitioners are liable to be set
aside/ quashed in view of golden principles as available
under guidelines nos. 1, 5 and 7 of the Bhajan Lal
Case (supra), as discussed above.
15. Accordingly, present quashing petition
stands allowed.
16. Impugned order of cognizance dated
16.02.2022 including any further proceedings qua
petitioners stands quashed/set aside.
17. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.05.2025
Transmission Date 10.05.2025
