SANDEEP KUMAR vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77411 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-676 Year-2021 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
Rohtas
======================================================
SANDEEP KUMAR SON OF GOPAL MISTRI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-
DELHA, P.S.- DELHA, DISTRICT- GAYA.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. SWETA MISHRA @ SETU MISHRA D/O ARJUN MISHRA RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE- MAJHIGAWAN, P.S.- ROHTAS, DISTRICT- ROHTAS
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Eashita Raj, Advocate
: Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Aditya Raj Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-09-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P.
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. The certified copy of the deposition of inquiry
witnesses, provided by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is
kept on record.
3. The present application has been filed for quashing
the order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge IIIrd, Rohtas at Sasaram in Criminal Revision
No.34 of 2023 whereby the order taking cognizance dated
19.05.2022 passed by Sub Judge V-cum-A.C.J.M. Rohtas at

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77411 of 2023 dt.03-09-2026
2/7
Sasaram, in Complaint Case No. 676 of 2021 by which prima
facie case under Section 323 and 379 of the I.P.C. was found for
issuance of summons, has been rejected.
4. The short facts of the case arising out of the complaint
is that the petitioner, who was a police constable, along with two
unknown persons came to complainant and pressurized her to
withdraw the case bearing Mahila P.S. Case No. 38 of 2020, filed
by the complainant against the petitioner. It is further alleged that
unknown persons gave the purse of complainant containing gold
earrings and Rs.6000/- cash to petitioner and when the
complainant asked to return her bag, all the accused persons
abused and assaulted her. When complainant’s mother and sister
came to rescue her then all the accused persons also assaulted and
abused them. Thereafter, the accused person fled away with the
said bag and threatened to kill them.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
it would be evident from the complaint itself that for an occurrence
which had taken place on 08.09.2021, the present complaint came
to be filed belatedly on 23.11.2021 after due deliberation and
thought. It is further submitted that the contents of the complaint
itself indicate that earlier the complainant had filed a case under
Section 376 of the I.P.C. against the present petitioner and once he

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77411 of 2023 dt.03-09-2026
3/7
had been granted anticipatory bail in the said proceeding, as stated
in Paragraph-5 of the complaint itself, the present complaint case
seems to have been lodged. The contents of the complaint itself
appear to be very vague and do not inspire confidence, inasmuch
as, the occurrence is said to have taken place in the premises of the
Court itself wherein she states that she had consumed the tea
which was offered to her by the accused and while she had kept
her bag on the table the accused picked up the said bag, gave it to
an unknown person, who fled away with the said bag. Further
allegation has been made with regard to some abuses having been
hurled and some assault by slaps were also indulged into.
6. It has been pointed out from the S.A. of the
complainant also that the present petitioner was known to her and
that she had filed another case against him. The inquiry witnesses
are also the mother and the sister of the opposite party no.2, who
have tried to support the case of the complainant. However, the
inquiry witness no.1 has not made any reference to the entire
incident of the bag being taken away and has only stated that when
they were having tea, the present petitioner came along with
another person and indulged in some acts of assault. Further, she
has only stated that they had snatched away some cash and
jewellery from them and ran away.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77411 of 2023 dt.03-09-2026
4/7
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has apprised this
Court of the fact that the petitioner along with her family is
habitual into lodging cases against several persons and Paragraph-
11 of the said petition indicates that as many as eleven cases have
been registered for offences under different sections by the family
members of the opposite party no.2. It has also been brought to the
notice of this Court that the earlier case under Section 376 I.P.C.
filed by the opposite party no.2 has also resulted in the quashing of
proceedings by way of an order dated 06.04.2026 passed by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 45080 of 2023 on
the ground that there was a consensual relationship between the
petitioner and the opposite party no.2 as accepted by the
complainant herself by stating that they were indulged in physical
relationship for about 3 years.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party no.2 has, however, opposed the present application by stating
that there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance as also the
revisional order and the application being devoid of any merit is fit
to be rejected.
9. I have heard the rival contentions made on behalf of
the parties and have also gone through the materials placed on
record. Upon a bare perusal of the complaint, the element of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77411 of 2023 dt.03-09-2026
5/7
absurdity is writ large, as the allegation relates to having tea with
the person against whom she had filed the earlier case, i.e. the
petitioner, in the Court premises and an unknown person fleeing
away with her bag at the instigation of the petitioner. It is quite
apparent that the present case has been malafidely lodged after
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the earlier case and
this fact has been stated in Paragraph-5 of the complaint itself. On
such vague and absurd allegations made in the complaint,
cognizance has been taken under Sections 323 and 379 of I.P.C., in
absence of any specific averment in the entire complaint that the
opposite party no.2 had received any hurt as contemplated under
Section 323 of the I.P.C.
10. It is true that at the stage of taking of cognizance,
Court is not required to make any roving enquiry or to go into the
merits of the allegations, but it is also a fact that the Court cannot
shut its eyes to the absurdity of allegations and at the time of
taking of cognizance, needs to examine the facts in its entirety and
not mechanically pass an order on the basis of some vague and
frivolous complaint.
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of
Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan vs. Ram Gopal Poddar & Anr. ,
reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 23 (SC) , in similar factual scenario that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77411 of 2023 dt.03-09-2026
6/7
the High Court has tremendous power to pass an order in the
interest of justice where allegations are so absurd that no
reasonable man would accept the same. Para 10 of the
abovementioned judgment is being quoted here under:-
“10. The learned counsel for the appellant is,
therefore, right in contending that the complaint had
to be quashed, firstly, because it was absurd and
secondly, because the complainant/respondent No. 1
wholly lack the bona fides in filing such complaint
which was absurd. The learned Counsel for the
respondent No. 1 vehemently argued that at this
stage, what was to be seen was only the contents of
the complaint and if there appeared the basic
contentions indicating committing of crime by the
appellant/accused, then the Courts would not
interfere with the same and leave the parties to lead
evidence during the ensuing trial, relying on the oft-
quoted decision in State of Haryana & Ors. vs.
Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335]. There
can be no dispute about the law laid down in that
case. However, where on the face of it the absurd
charges are levelled and there is a whole lack of the
bona fides of the complainant/respondent No. 1, in
our opinion, there would be no fetter in using the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
12. This Court, upon reading of the complaint and the
statement of the two inquiry witnesses who are the mother and
sister of the opposite party no.2 and also considering the fact that
although the occurrence is said to have taken place in the Court

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77411 of 2023 dt.03-09-2026
7/7
premises, there is no other independent witness to support the case
of the complainant, the entire incident does not appear to disclose
the commission of any offence. The present case, thus, falls within
the ambit of both categories no. (5) and (7) of the State of
Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 , as the allegations are not only absurd and
inherently improbable but it is also manifestly attended with
malafide intention.
13. This Court is thus of the considered view that
continuance of the present proceeding arising out of such vague,
absurd and vexatious allegation would amount to abuse of the
process of the Court. As such, the order taking cognizance dated
19.05.2022 as also the revisional order dated 21.07.2023 stand
quashed.
14. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
ayush/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.09.2026
Transmission Date 07.09.2026