Vishwajit Kumar @ Babloo and Anr vs State Of Bihar and Anr
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19322 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-315 Year-2016 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Vishwajit Kumar @ Babloo S/o Arvind Rai @ Arvind Rai @ Arvind Kumar
Yadav @ Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Prasad Yadav,
2. Dhiraj Kumar S/o Arvind Rai @ Arvind Kumar Yadav @ Arvind Kumar @
Arvind Prasad Yadav, Both R/o Village- Faqrabad, P.S.- Sonepur, District-
Saran Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Anju @ Khusbu Devi D/o Chandeshwar Prasad Mahto, R/o Village-
Jalalpur, P.S.- Patori, District- Samastipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate
Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Apul, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Shweta Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-09-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Opposite
Party No. 2.
2. The petitioners have filed this application for
quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 10.01.2017 passed
by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498(A), 504 and 34 of I.P.C.
in connection with Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 315 of 2016/
G.R. No. 2908 of 2016.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19322 of 2018 dt.07-09-2026
2/5
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant was
married to Vishwajit Kumar @ Babloo on 19.06.2010, according
to Hindu rites and rituals. It has been alleged that during the
hearing of a case, which arose due to demand of a motorcycle, in a
family court, when the informant came out of the Court, the
accused persons started to abuse her, harassed her and also
assaulted her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
prior to the lodging of the present F.I.R., a complaint case was
lodged by the present informant on 08.04.2015, in which
cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of I.P.C. It has
further been submitted that prior to the filing of the said complaint,
petitioner No. 1 had filed a case under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage bearing matrimonial case
No. 54 of 2015, the said suit was admitted and notice was issued
on 02.04.2015 and the said complaint, i.e., 585 of 2015, came to
be filed on 08.04.2015, when the present informant came to know
about the issuance of the notice in the divorce case. It has further
been submitted that a maintenance case also came to be filed
against petitioner No. 1 on 09.04.2015, and during continuation of
the said proceeding of maintenance case, the F.I.R. has been
lodged. It has further been submitted that from a plain reading of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19322 of 2018 dt.07-09-2026
3/5
the F.I.R., no offence under Section 498A is made out and the
present F.I.R. is nothing but a malicious and vexatious one so as to
spite personal score. It has further been submitted, referring to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal; reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , and
also referring to various categories, as discussed in paragraph No.
102 of the said judgment, that no offence against the petitioners is
made out. It has further been submitted, referring to the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Ahluwalia vs.
the State of Punjab ; reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2013 , that
the present F.I.R. was a retaliatory counter-blast and constitutes
abuse of the process of the Court. It has further been submitted,
referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2024 INSC 737 , that where the
charge-sheet merely reproduces the F.I.R. allegations with nothing
new added by the investigating agency indicates vexatious intent
and no evidence was found to support the complaint and the
charge-sheet has simply reproduced all the wordings of the
complaint, while there is nothing new even after investigation. It
has further been submitted, referring to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19322 of 2018 dt.07-09-2026
4/5
Jharkhand , reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 , that the prosecution
against petitioner No. 2, who happens to be the family member of
petitioner No. 1, is malicious and vexatious one when there is
general and omnibus allegation against him. It has further been
submitted that continuation of present prosecution against the
petitioners would be an abuse of the process of Court in the
backdrop of pending litigation between the parties. It has further
been submitted that the order taking cognizance has been passed in
a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. It has
lastly been submitted that such prosecution, which is attended with
malice and personal vendetta, should not be allowed to continue.
5. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned
counsel for the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 has vehemently
opposed the prayer of the petitioners and learned counsel for the
Opposite Party No.2 has further submitted that the allegation
against the petitioners have been found true during the course of
investigation and charge-sheet came to be filed against them,
moreover, the litigation pending between the parties goes to show
that the informant/Opposite Party No.2 has been subjected to
various criminal offence at all times and the order taking
cognizance is good in law and facts and requires no interference.
6. Heard the parties and perused the record.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19322 of 2018 dt.07-09-2026
5/5
7. Considering the fact that there are serious litigation
pending between the parties, when maintenance case, divorce case
and 498A is pending between the parties, the present prosecution
against the petitioners with such allegations, as leveled in the
F.I.R., would amount to abuse of the process of Court, the order
taking cognizance dated 10.01.2017, passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, in connection with Samastipur
(Town) P.S. Case No. 315 of 2016/ G.R. No. 2908 of 2016 is
hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Abdus/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.09.2026
Transmission Date 07.09.2026