Vaibhav Poddar @ Baibhai Poddar @ Vaibhav and Anr vs State Of Bihar and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11592 of 2017
CNR No. BRHC010512832017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2016 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Saharsa
======================================================
1. Vaibhav Poddar @ Baibhai Poddar @ Vaibhav S/o Late Jagannath Poddar,
2. Manju Poddar, W/o Late Jagannath Poddar, Both R/o C- 49, Pocket-6,
Central Vihar- II, Sector- 82, Noida, P.S.and District- Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh West.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Niharika Poddar, W/o Vaibhav Poddar, & D/o Srikant Poddar, R/o Colony
and P.S.- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vaibhav Narayan, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-10-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State. Even after valid service of notice, there is
no representation on behalf of opposite party no. 2.
2. The petitioners have filed this application for the
quashing of the order dated 05.08.2016, passed by the learned
st
Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Saharsa, in Mahila P.S. Case No.
01 of 2016, whereby cognizance was taken against the
petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A),
323, 34 of the IPC.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11592 of 2017 dt.29-10-2026
2/5
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the
informant alleged that her husband and her in-laws took her
jewellery and Rs. 28,000/-, assaulted and harassed her for
dowry, confined her and accused her of witchcraft. She further
alleged that after disputes over these matters, she was asked to
leave her matrimonial home.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and
they happen to be the husband and the mother-in-law
respectively of the informant. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that as per the averments made in the
written statement, none of the occurrence allegedly took place
within the territorial jurisdiction of Saharsa district and the
entire alleged occurrence took place at Delhi.
4.1. It has further been submitted that it is not the
case of the informant that she was ousted from her matrimonial
home, rather, in the FIR itself, she has stated that she took a
train on her own sweet will from Delhi to reach her native place.
4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further
submitted, referring to the provision of Section 177 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, that every offence should ordinarily be
inquired into and tried by the Court within whose local

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11592 of 2017 dt.29-10-2026
3/5
jurisdiction it was committed.
4.3. Learned counsel has further submitted,
referring to provision of Section 178 Cr.P.C., which deals with
the place of inquiry or trial, that the offence is not a continuing
one as provided under Section 178(c) and did not continue to be
committed in more local areas than one and, further referring to
provision under Section 178(d), it has specifically been
submitted that in the present case there were no several acts
done in different local areas. Moreover, referring to provision of
Section 179 of the Cr.P.C., it has been submitted that
consequences did not fall in the Saharsa district and no act was
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Saharsa district.
It has, thus, been submitted that lodging of the case at Saharsa
and not at Delhi shows the malicious intent of the accused.
4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that the informant has herself filed a petition for
divorce before the Court below and divorce was granted on
contest by the petitioner no.1 being the husband. The petitioner
No. 1 even challenged the said order of grant of divorce in
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25 of 2022 and, by judgment dated
04.01.2023, the appeal filed against the said judgment came to
be dismissed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11592 of 2017 dt.29-10-2026
4/5
4.5. It has further been submitted that petitioner no.
1 always tried to reconcile the issue and even the divorce
granted in favour of the informant-wife was contested by
petitioner no. 1. Moreover, an application under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act was also filed by petitioner no. 1, in which
an order was passed against the informant.
4.6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further
submitted, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported
in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , that the case of the petitioners falls
under various categories as discussed in Paragraph 102 of the
said judgment.
4.7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in the case of Nitin Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab as
reported in 2025 INSC 1128 , and has submitted that in a case
where adverse decrees against the informant in other
proceedings pending between the parties has led to lodging of
the FIR as a retaliatory measure, the timing and surrounding
context are decisive markers of malafide intent and such
retaliatory FIR constitutes abuse of process of law and the
present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11592 of 2017 dt.29-10-2026
5/5
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer
of the petitioner.
6. Heard the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances and the
issue of territorial jurisdiction as well as the present FIR being
retaliatory counter blast by the informant and also in view of the
judgments, as discussed above, the present prosecution against
the petitioners would amount to be an abuse of the process of
the law and the court.
8. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated
st
05.08.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class,
Saharsa, in Mahila P.S. Case No. 01 of 2016, is hereby quashed.
9. The application accordingly stands allowed.

(Praveen Kumar, J)
Rupa/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.10.2026
Transmission Date 30.10.2026