[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Kumar ... vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 5 February, 2026
Author: Shailendra Singh
Bench: Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22855 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2015 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District-
Katihar
======================================================
1. Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Son of Nagendra Prasad
Singh.
2. Panchanand Singh, Son of Late Rudal Singh
3. Brij Mohan Singh @ Birju, Son of Panchanand Singh,
All resident of Mohalla- Larkania Tola Police Station- Katihar Town,
District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Chandra Sekhar, son of Late Ram Chandra Ray, Resident of Mohalla-
Larkania Tola, P.O.- Katihar, P.S.- Katihar Town, District- Katihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jibendra Mishra, Adv.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rananjay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. H.C. Patel, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 05-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned APP for the State.
2. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has
been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), by the
petitioners seeking quashing of the order dated 30.04.2015
passed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Katihar, in Complaint Case No. C.A. 84 of 2015, whereby the
learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences punishable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22855 of 2016 dt. 05 -02-2026
under Sections 448, 323, 379, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and summoned the petitioners
to face trial for the said offences. The aforesaid order taking
cognizance is under challenge in the present quashing
application.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioners:-
3. Mr. Jibendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned order is wholly
unsustainable in the eye of law, being contrary to the principles
laid down by this Court in Surendra Pandit @ Soren Pandit &
Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42389 of
2012. The relevant paragraph, upon which reliance has been
placed, is reproduced hereinbelow:
"As properly advised, the 2nd respondent
filed a protest petition. The concerned
Court could have weighed the pros and
cons of the final report, on the one hand,
and the protest petition, on the other hand,
and taken a decision in this behalf. Even from
perusal of the order challenged in this
petition, it is evident that the trial Court
accepted the final report, despite there
being a protest petition. It only means that
protest petition was not found to be
acceptable.
Once the final report was accepted, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22855 of 2016 dt. 05 -02-2026
proceeding referable to the FIR stand
terminated. If the second respondent was
aggrieved on account of the acceptance of
the final report filed by the police, he ought
to have approached this Court by
instituting appropriate proceedings.
However, on his insistence, the protest
petition was treated as a complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. Whatever be the
possibility for the protest petition being
treated as a complaint under Section 200
Cr.P.C., once the final report has been
accepted, the question of keeping the
matter alive through a different channel
does not arise."
3.1. While referring to the aforesaid paragraph of the
cited judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between
the petitioners and Opposite Party No. 2 during the relevant
period. It has further been contended that Opposite Party No. 2
had initially lodged Katihar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2014 alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,
120(B), 452, 379, 504/34 of the IPC and Sections 24 and 25 of
the Arms Act. The said case was investigated, and upon
completion of investigation, the police submitted a final form
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22855 of 2016 dt. 05 -02-2026
concluding that the dispute between the parties was of a civil
nature and, accordingly, the petitioners were not sent up for trial.
Thereafter, the learned Magistrate accepted the final form
despite the filing of a protest petition. In view of the principles
laid down by this Court in the case of Surendra Pandit (supra),
the said protest petition ought to be deemed as having been not
accepted; however, the learned Magistrate proceeded further on
said protest petition and, after examining the inquiry witnesses,
took cognizance of the alleged offences by passing the
impugned order.
3.2. It has been further submitted that, in fact, there is
no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. All the witnesses cited
in the protest petition and examined before the learned
Magistrate during the course of inquiry at the instance of
Opposite Party No. 2 are close relatives of Opposite Party No. 2.
Arguments on behalf of the O.P. No.2:-
4. On the other hand, Mr. Rananjay Kumar, learned
counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2, has submitted that
there is no illegality in the impugned order, as it is well settled
that even after accepting the final form, the concerned
Magistrate is competent to proceed on the protest petition and
take cognizance of the offences if the commission thereof
appears from the averments made in the protest petition and is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22855 of 2016 dt. 05 -02-2026
supported by the statements of the inquiry witnesses. It has
further been submitted that there is sufficient material on record
to proceed against the petitioners for the offences of which
cognizance has been taken.
Consideration and analysis:-
5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and
perused the impugned order as well as the relevant materials on
record. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners, while placing reliance upon the judgment of this
Court in Surendra Pandit (supra), contended that the approach
adopted by the learned Magistrate in treating the protest petition
filed by Opposite Party No. 2 as a complaint, despite the police
having submitted a final report in favour of the petitioners
declaring them innocent and the same having been accepted by
the learned Magistrate, was improper and contrary to the
principles settled by this Court in the aforesaid decision. I find
no force in the above contention. It is well settled by a catena of
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if a protest
petition satisfies the requirements of a complaint, the Magistrate
is competent to treat the protest petition as a complaint and to
proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. Acceptance of the final
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22855 of 2016 dt. 05 -02-2026
report does not preclude or debar the Magistrate from taking
cognizance on the basis of materials brought on record in a
complaint proceeding, as the right of the informant/complainant
to file a protest petition in the nature of a complaint is not
extinguished merely because the final form submitted by the
police has been accepted. In this regard, reference may be made
to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishore
Kumar Gyanchandani v. G.D. Mehrotra & Anr., reported in
(2011) 15 SCC 513, wherein the relevant observations made in
paragraph 6 are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"6. It is too well settled that when police
after investigation files a final form under
Section 173 of the Code, the Magistrate may
disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the
police and take cognizance in exercise of
power under Section 190 of the Code. The
Magistrate may not take cognizance and
direct further investigation in the matter
under Section 156 of the Code. Where the
Magistrate accepts the final form submitted
by the police, the right of the complainant to
file a regular complaint is not taken away and
in fact on such a complaint being filed the
Magistrate follows the procedure under
Section 201 of the Code and takes
cognizance if the materials produced by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22855 of 2016 dt. 05 -02-2026
complainant make out an offence. This
question has been raised and answered by
this Court in the case of Gopal Vijay Verma v.
Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha whereunder the
view of the Patna High Court to the contrary
has been reversed. The Court in no uncertain
terms in the aforesaid case has indicated that
the acceptance of final form does not debar
the Magistrate from taking cognizance on the
basis of the materials produced in a
complaint proceeding."
6. Thus, the learned Magistrate has not committed any
error in treating the protest petition filed by Opposite Party No.
2 as a complaint. Accordingly, there is no substance in the
aforesaid contention. The next question for consideration is
whether subjecting the petitioners to criminal prosecution for
the alleged offences, of which cognizance has been taken,
amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court or not. It is an
admitted position that during the relevant period of time there
existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the
petitioners and Opposite Party No. 2. According to the
petitioners, Opposite Party No. 2 was their tenant who had taken
the concerned premises on rent but failed to vacate the same.
The said dispute might be a reason to commit the alleged
occurrence by the petitioners. Opposite Party No. 2 has levelled
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22855 of 2016 dt. 05 -02-2026
several allegations against the petitioners disclosing prima facie
commission of the alleged offences of which cognizance has
been taken as well as petitioners' involvement in the said
occurrence. Some of the witnesses cited in the complaint/protest
petition were also examined during the course of inquiry, and
their statements lend support to the allegations made by
Opposite Party No. 2. Although it has been contended by
learned counsel for the petitioners that Opposite Party No. 2 is a
practicing advocate and that there are certain contradictions
between the averments made in the complaint petition and the
statements of the inquiry witnesses but the same, at this stage,
cannot be made a ground to exonerate the petitioners from the
criminal liability arising against them out of the alleged
occurrence. It was further submitted during the course of
arguments that all the witnesses examined at the instance of
Opposite Party No. 2 during the inquiry inimically disposed
towards the petitioners. However, the petitioners have failed to
disclose the basis or reasons for such alleged enmity, and the
said assertion in the present petition is unsupported by any
material on record.
Conclusion:-
7. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22855 of 2016 dt. 05 -02-2026
impugned order. The instant petition is, therefore, dismissed on
merits.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Rajiv/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 27.01.2026
Uploading Date 05.02.2026
Transmission Date 05.02.2026
