Kaushalendra Pratap Shahi @ Kaushalendra Pratap Sahi and Ors vs State Of Bihar and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9764 of 2018
CNR No. BRHC010945932018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2294 Year-2016 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Kaushalendra Pratap Shahi @ Kaushalendra Pratap Sahi and Ors S/o Late
Yadvendra Pratap Shahi,
2. Neelima Shahi, W/o Kaushalendra Pratap Shahi @ Kaushalendra Pratap
Sahi @ Kaushanlendra Pratap Sahi,
3. Ram Ram Vijay Pratap Shahi @ Ran Vijay Pratap Shahi, Son of Late
Yadvendra Pratap Shahi,
4. Jaya Shahi, W/o Ram Ran Vijay Pratap Shahi @ Ran Vijay Shahi,
5. Keshri Nandan Pratap Shahi S/o Late Yadvendra Pratap Shahi, All are R/o
Sursand Kothi, Mohalla- Aam Gola, Mamajee Lane, P.S.- Kaji
Mohammadpur, District- Mzuaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar and Anr
2. Amrita Shahi W/o Late Raghuvir Pratap Shahi, R/o Mohalla- Aam Gola,
Mamajee Lane, P.S.- Kaji Mohammadpur, District- Mzuaffarpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjana
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9764 of 2018 dt.02-11-2026
2/9
Date : 02-11-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the APP.
2 . This application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of the order dated
23.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-I (East), Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 2294 of
2016, corresponding to Trial No. 535 of 2017, whereby the
petitioners were summoned to face trial for offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 379 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
3 . The central question is whether the criminal
proceeding, in the facts and circumstances borne out from the
record, is a genuine prosecution for criminal offences or whether
an underlying family/property dispute has been given the colour of
a criminal proceeding so as to exert pressure upon a co-sharer.
Mere pendency of a civil proceeding does not by itself bar
criminal prosecution. The issue is whether, on an examination of
the entire factual setting, continuation of the criminal process
would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
4 . Opposite Party No. 2, Amrita Shahi, is the widow of
Late Raghuvir Pratap Shahi. The record shows that after the death
of her husband on 03.07.2014, disputes arose amongst the
members of the family concerning joint/ancestral property, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9764 of 2018 dt.02-11-2026
3/9
complainant's asserted share therein, the proposed sale of portions
of the property, and the income arising from the property. The
petitioners' record refers to Title Partition Suit No. 541 of 2016
and to proceedings before the revenue authority, the pleadings and
documents placed on record in those proceedings form an
important part of the factual background.
5 . The complainant had earlier lodged Muzaffarpur
Mahila P.S. Case No. 69 of 2016 dated 27.05.2016 against the
petitioners, principally concerning alleged obstruction to her
dealing with her share of land, execution of her signature on stamp
papers said to be connected with money required for her daughter's
marriage, and allegations of assault and threat. The petitioners
were granted anticipatory bail in that case by this Court on
09.09.2016 in Cr. Misc. No. 39520 of 2016, upon a consideration
of the nature of the accusation in the background of the partition
dispute. Investigation into that case culminated in Final Form No.
73 of 2016 dated 30.09.2016, recording the dispute as civil in
nature.
6 . The present Complaint Case No. 2294 of 2016 was
lodged directly by Opposite Party No. 2, without any fresh police
investigation preceding it. The complainant alleged that on
20.10.2016 at about 9.00 a.m., while she was constructing her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9764 of 2018 dt.02-11-2026
4/9
house and erecting a partition wall, the petitioners stopped the
construction work. They called her on the pretext of Panchayati
and demanded withdrawal of an application which she had earlier
filed before the Court and also assaulted her and took away a gold
chain and bangles. The complaint itself thus places the alleged
occurrence directly in the context of the complainant's asserted
share in the joint property and the construction raised upon it.
7 . The complaint itself refers to Muzaffarpur Mahila P.S.
Case No. 69 of 2016, to the order granting anticipatory bail with a
condition that the complainant would not be obstructed in availing
her share in the matrimonial property, and to the pending Title
Partition Suit No. 541 of 2016. The genesis of the present
complaint is thus inseparably connected with the parties' pre-
existing dispute over the property, a dispute in which the police
had earlier taken the view, after investigation, that the matter was
civil in nature.
8 . The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is intended to prevent abuse of the process of
the Court and to secure the ends of justice. The Court is not
required, at this stage, to conduct a mini-trial. At the same time,
where the attending circumstances demonstrate that a dispute
essentially civil in nature has been given criminal colour, the High

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9764 of 2018 dt.02-11-2026
5/9
Court is not powerless merely because the complaint contains
some criminal expressions.
9 . The parameters governing exercise of this jurisdiction
were laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 . Category 5 of the illustrative categories
noticed in paragraph 102 of that judgment covers a case where the
allegations, even taken at face value, disclose essentially a civil
dispute with a criminal texture, carrying no more than a remote
possibility of criminal liability. In Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State
of U.P., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 947 , the Supreme Court
reiterated that a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section
482 need not confine itself to the FIR or complaint as it stands, and
may take into account the overall circumstances leading to
registration of the case together with the material gathered during
investigation. The same approach was applied in Mahmood Ali v.
State of U.P., reported in (2023) 15 SCC 488 , where the Court
held that once mala fide or an oblique motive is alleged, the Court
is not confined to the four corners of the complaint and may read
the record as a whole to see whether the criminal process has been
set in motion for a collateral purpose.
10 . In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.,
reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 , the Supreme Court, while

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9764 of 2018 dt.02-11-2026
6/9
cautioning against interference with legitimate prosecutions,
recognised that a complaint may be quashed where, taken at face
value, it does not prima facie constitute an offence, and also where
continuation would amount to abuse of the process of Court. The
Court emphasised that the complaint is to be examined as a whole
and that the power is to be exercised sparingly.
11 . The Court is not persuaded to quash this proceeding
merely because a civil dispute exists. That, by itself, would be an
insufficient ground. What is decisive here is the cumulative factual
setting.
12 . First, the dispute over the complainant's share in the
joint/family property demonstrably preceded and accompanied the
criminal complaint. The record shows the existence of Title
Partition Suit No. 541 of 2016 and proceedings before the revenue
authority, and the present complaint arises directly out of a
partition wall raised upon land which is the subject of that pre-
existing contest.
13 . Second, the police investigation into the earlier and
related allegations contained in Mahila P.S. Case No. 69 of 2016
resulted in Final Form No. 73 of 2016, recording the dispute
between the same parties, over the same property, as civil in
nature. The Court does not treat the final form as conclusive proof

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9764 of 2018 dt.02-11-2026
7/9
of innocence in the present complaint, which is a distinct
proceeding. It is, however, a significant attending circumstance
when the present prosecution is examined against the setting of the
admitted property litigation between the parties.
14 . Third, the present complaint is expressly connected,
on its own averments, with construction of a house, erection of a
partition wall, and the complainant's claim to her share in the joint
property; it also invokes the anticipatory bail condition granted in
the earlier case concerning that very share. The complaint is thus
not a fresh and independent criminal transaction divorced from the
property dispute, but a continuation of the same underlying contest
in a different procedural form.
15 . Fourth, the allegations of assault, threat and removal
of ornaments, if standing alone and in an ordinary case, could
warrant prosecution. The present conclusion is not that such
allegations can never constitute offences. The conclusion is fact-
specific: on the material before this Court, those allegations arise
in the course of an ongoing family/property contest which had
already been the subject of a police investigation resulting in a
final form treating the underlying dispute as civil. In these
circumstances, continuation of the criminal process would serve to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9764 of 2018 dt.02-11-2026
8/9
perpetuate the very criminalisation of a property dispute which the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 is meant to prevent.
16 . The Court therefore finds that the present case falls
within the principle recognised in Bhajan Lal (Supra) and the
other decisions noticed above. The criminal proceeding has
acquired the character of a proceeding used to exert pressure in an
essentially civil/property dispute. Its continuation, in the peculiar
facts of the present case, would amount to abuse of the process of
the Court.
17 . For the reasons aforesaid, the application is allowed.
18 . The order dated 23.09.2017 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I (East), Muzaffarpur, in
Complaint Case No. 2294 of 2016, corresponding to Trial No. 535
of 2017, whereby the petitioners were summoned for offences
under Sections 147, 148, 379 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby
quashed.
19 . It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon
title, partition, possession, validity of any sale deed, lease deed or
the parties' respective civil rights. All such questions remain open
to be determined by the competent civil/revenue forum in
accordance with law. The observations in this judgment are

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9764 of 2018 dt.02-11-2026
9/9
confined to the question whether the criminal proceeding, in the
factual setting noticed above, should be permitted to continue.
20 . All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(Ansul, J)
krishna/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 28.08.2026
Uploading Date
Transmission Date