Dr. Dhruo Deo Mali vs State Of Bihar and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49201 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010881202016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4300 Year-2016 Thana- GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE
District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Dr. Dhruo Deo Mali, son of Adalat Mali, resident of village – Sawanahi Pati
Tola Dhoom Nagar, P.S. - Phulwaria, District – Gopalganj ; presently residing
at Thawe Road (near bus stand) , P.O. + P.S. - Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar.
2. Mukul Kumar Tiwary @ Mukul Tiwary @ Dablu Tiwary, son of Late
Bharat Tiwary, resident of village – Kotwan, P.S. & District – Gopalganj.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashwat Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vyas Kumar Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 13-10-2026
The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, ( in short Cr.P.C. ) seeking quashing of the order dated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
2/23
st
16.09.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class,
Gopalganj, in connection with Tr. No. 2278/16 arising out of
Complaint Case No. 4300 of 2016, whereby cognizance has
been taken of the offences punishable under Sections
323,504,506,387 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code ( in
short I.P.C. ), against the petitioner.
2. The prosecution case, as emerging from the
complaint and the materials referred to in the present
application, is that the dispute between the parties relates to a
piece of land situated at village Sareya, P.S. Gopalganj, District
Gopalganj, comprising Plot Nos. 1232, 1233 and 1234. The
dispute primarily concerns the title, possession, identification
and boundary of the aforesaid plots, over which the petitioner
and opposite party No. 2 have set up competing claims. It has
been alleged that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 was
called to police station on 24.06.2016, where all the accused
persons, as named, were there and accused/SHO and Manoj
Patel threatened him on behalf of the petitioner and, thereafter,
sent him to jail in a case lodged by the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
3/23
3. Levelling aforesaid allegations, the
complainant/opposite party No. 2, namely, Mukul Kumar
Tiwary, from custody, filed a complaint case in the Court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj on 25.06.2016 for
the occurrence alleged to have taken place on 24.06.2016,
implicating many persons including the petitioner, upon which,
Complaint Case No. 4300 of 2016 was instituted.
4. Thereafter, the solemn affirmation of the
Complainant and statement of inquiry witnesses, namely,
Birendra Dubey, Prabhunath Yadav, Baban Yadav were
recorded and having perused the same and the materials brought
on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Gopalganj
vide order dated 16.09.2016 took cognizance of the offences
under Sections 323, 504, 506, 387 and 120 (B) of the I.P.C.
5. Assailing the order dated 16.09.2016 and issuance
of process against the petitioner, namely, Dr. Dhruo Deo Mali,
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, submits that the impugned criminal
proceedings is an abuse of the process of the Court, which has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
4/23
been instituted with the sole object to harass the petitioner and
exerting pressure upon him in relation to a property dispute.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner, namely, Dr. Dhruo Deo Mali, is a Child Specialist.
7. It was contended that the dispute between the parties
is essentially civil in nature and relates to the ownership,
possession, measurement and boundary of the land comprised in
Plot Nos. 1232, 1233 and 1234. The petitioner has relied upon
the registered sale deeds and the documents annexed to the
application to demonstrate that the land has been in the
possession of their predecessors since 1983.
8. Learned counsel contends that the complainant has
attempted to give a criminal colour to a dispute concerning the
identification of the land and the respective rights of the parties.
The allegations in the complaint, when considered in the light of
the registered conveyances and the previous possession of the
petitioner, do not disclose the commission of the offences
alleged against them.
9. It is contended that the dispute concerning the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
5/23
boundary wall cannot by itself, constitute the offences alleged in
the complaint, particularly when the parties are asserting
competing claims over the same property and the question of the
precise boundary requires determination in appropriate civil
proceedings.
10. Learned counsel also drew the attention of the
Court to the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with
the same dispute, including Complaint Case No. 4299 of 2016.
It was submitted that the institution of successive proceedings
demonstrates the attempt of opposite party No. 2 to use the
criminal process as an instrument of prosecution.
11. It is urged that allegation in the present complaint
is totally concocted as the petitioner has never visited Thana
(P.S.) on 24.06.2016. On the contrary, the complainant/opposite
party No. 2 was arrested by the police in connection with
Gopalganj (Town) P.S. Case No. 258 of 2016 lodged by the
petitioner against the complainant/opposite party for the crimes
committed by him.
12. By referring to the supplementary affidavit, learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
6/23
counsel submitted that the subsequent developments in the civil
proceedings and the documents relating to the title and
possession of the property further demonstrate the civil
character of the controversy. It was contended that the
supplementary affidavit deserves to be considered along with
the original petition while examining whether continuation of
the criminal proceedings would serve any legitimate purpose.
13. He submits that there is absolutely no allegation, at
all, against the petitioner in the complaint case. Moreover, in
the solemn affirmation, no specific act of crime has been alleged
against the petitioner.
14. Learned counsel argues that the allegations of
assault, intimidation, extortion and damage to property have
been made in the background of the existing land dispute and
are not supported by circumstances sufficient to establish the
essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the
petitioner.
15. It was lastly contended that the criminal
proceedings have been instituted maliciously with ulterior

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
7/23
motive to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner. Continuation of
the prosecution, in the circumstances of the case, would amount
to an abuse of the process of law, warranting interference by this
Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C.
16. Per contra , Mr.Vyas Kumar Mishra learned
counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 opposed the
application and submitted that the allegations made in the
complaint disclose the commission of cognizable offences
committed by the petitioner in collusion with other accused
persons and that the learned Magistrate, after following the
procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C., has rightly taken
cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner.
17. It was contended that the complainant has
specifically alleged that the petitioner, in furtherance of their
common intention and with the object of interfering with the
complainant's possession over the disputed property, committed
the acts attracting the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code
with the help of the police, which became a party in it. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
8/23
complaint is stated to disclose allegations of extortion and
threatening to the complainant/opposite party No. 2 with dire
consequences. It is contended that the petitioner’s reliance upon
the registered sale deeds and their claim of title cannot, by itself,
be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. The
existence of a civil dispute between the parties does not exclude
the possibility of criminal liability where the allegations, taken
at their face value, disclose the commission of criminal
offences.
18. He also contends that the complaint was duly
considered by the learned Magistrate, who examined the
complainant on solemn affirmation and the witnesses during the
inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. The impugned order,
therefore, cannot be said to have been passed without
application of judicial mind.
19. Learned counsel lastly argues that the defence of
the petitioner, including their claim regarding the original
boundary, the identity of the plots and the genuineness and
effect of the respective sale deeds, involves disputed questions

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
9/23
of fact which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in
proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
20. It was, accordingly, submitted that the allegations
made in the complaint and the materials collected during the
inquiry, justify continuation of the criminal proceedings and that
the petitioner ought to raise his defence before the learned Trial
Court, in accordance with law.
21. Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastri, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and
submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the
learned Magistrate upon consideration of the complaint and the
materials available at the stage of inquiry.
22. It was submitted that the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where
the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose
commission of any offence or where continuation of the
criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process
of the Court.
23. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
10/23
that the truthfulness of the allegations, the respective claims of
possession and the evidentiary value of the documents relied
upon by the petitioner, are matters which ought to be considered
by the competent Court, in the course of the trial.
24. It was, thus, submitted that no interference with the
impugned order is required at the present stage.
25. Heard rival submissions advanced on behalf of the
respective parties and having given thoughtful consideration to
the submissions so advanced and having perused the materials
and documents brought on record, this Court proceeds to
examine the allegation, vis-a-vis, the dispute between the parties
inter se, keeping in mind the settled legal principles and judicial
pronouncement in this regard.
26. The dispute between the parties, as emerges from
the averments made in the complaint petition, as well as from
the arguments advanced and the documents brought on record,
prima facie, appears to be a matter of rival claim over the piece
of land and the boundary constructed thereon with a gate affixed
over the same and on account of which cases have been lodged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
11/23
by both the parties against each other.
27. Three plots numbered as 1232, 1233 and 1234
appertaining to Khata No. 130, village Sareya, district –
Gopalganj, are subject matter of dispute between the petitioner
and opposite party No. 2, which constitute a single block of land
indisputably belonging to Most. Jyotia Devi, Nand Lal Sah,
Most. Parwati Devi including their minor wards, namely, Brij
Lal, Mohan Lal and Chhotey lal.
28. There appears to be four transactions in connection
with the aforesaid land relating to its sale which is discussed
hereunder for the sake of clarity in order to appreciate the basic
nature of dispute between the parties :-
(i) The first transaction took place on
21.06.1983 where the aforesaid original land
owners, by way of 5 registered sale deeds, sold 02
katha 10 dhurs of land to one Dr. Subhash
Chandra Rai and his wife, namely, Smt. Veena Rai.
While executing the aforesaid sale deeds, the
vendors, i.e., the original landlords, kept 12 feet
wide entrance from the road side to their own use,
which is evident from the sale deed executed on
21.06.1983. After the sale, the possession of land
was duly handed over to Dr. Subhash Chandra Rai

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
12/23
and his wife, who came in peaceful possession
over the same after completing all the formalities,
including mutation etc.
Thereafter, the said Dr. Subhash
Chandra Rai constructed a boundary wall over
the land with an iron gate fixed on it.
(ii) The second transaction with respect
to the aforesaid land took place on 10.06.1994
and 14.08.1997 respectively. On 10.06.1994
original landlord, namely, Parwati Devi, sold 01
bigha and 15 dhurs of land to one, Veena
Srivastava and Rajendra Prasad Srivastava
through registered Sale Deed No. 13526 dated
10.06.1994. Later on her son, namely, Brij Lal
also transferred 11.1/2 dhurs of land to Smt. Veena
Srivastava on 14.08.1997 through registered Sale
Deed No. 11673, thereafter these purchasers came
in peaceful possession over the said land.
(iii) The third transaction took place on
08.04.2015 when Dr. Subhash Chandra Rai and
Veena Rai, the first purchaser of the aforesaid land
in the year 1983, sold their entire share along with
boundary wall and trees over the aforesaid land of
2 katthas and 10 dhurs to Dr. Dhruo Deo Mali
(petitioner herein) vide Sale Deed No. 3481 and
3482, both dated 08.04.2015.
(iv) The fourth and last transaction over
the aforesaid piece of land took place on
03.03.2016, when the second purchasers,
Rajendra Prasad Srivastava sold 1.18 katthas of
land to Mukul Kumar Tiwary (opposite party No.
2 herein) and his wife, who after coming over

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
13/23
peaceful possession of the land purchased, after
some time, started making inroads over the piece
of land of petitioner by damaging the boundary
wall constructed thereon.

29. Thus, it becomes evident that from the large chunk
of land, both petitioner and opposite party No. 2 have purchased
respective shares of land from their rightful owners and the
main bone of contention between the parties appears to be
boundary wall which had been constructed by the first
purchasers in the year 1983.
30. The opposite party No. 2 encroached upon the land
of petitioner and demolished the boundary wall, whereafter
petitioner reported the matter to the police upon which
Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 265 of 2016, dated 24.06.2016, was
registered for the offences under Sections
147,148,149,427,384,506,504 and 386 of the I.P.C.
31. Immediately thereafter on 25.06.2016, opposite
party No. 2, i.e. , the Complainant, filed the instant complaint
case in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gopalganj, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 4300

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
14/23
of 2016, implicating the petitioner and others.
32. The complainant/opposite party No. 2 was arrested
by police in course of investigation of Gopalganj Town P.S.
Case No. 265 of 2016 lodged by petitioner and was put behind
bar and from the custody, the complainant/opposite party No. 2
filed the instant Complaint Case No. 4300 of 2016, dated
25.06.2016, against the petitioner and S.H.O. of the Gopalganj
Town Police Station.
33. Even prior to filing the instant case on 25.06.2016,
the complainant/opposite party No. 2 had already filed a
Complaint Case No. 4229 of 2016 on 21.06.2016. In this case,
cognizance was taken on 02.07.2016, which was assailed before
this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 47186 of 2016. The said case was
heard and allowed by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2026,
whereby the order taking cognizance as well as entire criminal
proceedings have been quashed qua the petitioner.
34. It is evident from the records that opposite party
No. 2 has purchased the piece of land in March, 2016 and after
lodging of F.I.R. against him by petitioner on 24.06.2016, he

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
15/23
filed the instant complaint case in retaliation thereof on
25.06.2016, implicating the petitioner and others.
35. The perusal of the entire complaint petition
indisputably reflects the pure civil nature of dispute between the
parties for which a Panchayati , as claimed by the
complainant/opposite party, was called on 24.06.2016 in the
local Police Station, wherein, with respect to competing claims
regarding possession and control over the passage and gate, the
criminal prosecution has been initiated. The very civil nature of
dispute between the parties is also evident not only from the
averments made in the complaint application but also from the
statement of Complainant and inquiry witnesses recorded by the
learned Court on oath.
36. The aforesaid contention is further fortified from
the Title Suit No. 889 of 2017 pending between the parties
before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction at Gopalganj.
37. As a matter of fact, the present complaint case
appears to be a counter measure lodged by opposite party No. 2
against the petitioner for registering a police case against him

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
16/23
and just in order to settle score on the very next day of filing of
the police case, opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint case
implicating the petitioner and others. Not only that but when he
was arrested by the police in connection with Gopalganj Town
P.S. Case No. 258 of 2016 lodged by petitioner, from custody he
filed this case, arraying the petitioner and others and the S.H.O.
of the Gopalganj Town Police Station as accused.
38. From the statement of complainant and inquiry
witnesses recorded by the Court, it is evident that there is
absolutely no allegation, at all, against the petitioner.
39. The petitioner in order to save his property took
recourse to the law enforcing machinery, which was not liked by
the opposite party No. 2, who immediately swung into action by
resorting to filing cases by way of retaliation, implicating the
petitioner.
40. This practice of settling civil dispute between the
parties by taking recourse to criminal prosecution and setting
the criminal Courts in motion, have severely been deprecated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the most unequivocal terms, in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
17/23
copious of its judgment, which is the binding law of the land.
40.1 In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC
India Ltd. , reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has deprecated the tendency to convert civil dispute into
criminal proceedings.
40.2. In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State
of Uttaranchal , reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has emphasized that criminal prosecution must
not be permitted as an instrument of harassment or private
vendetta. Furthermore, in the case of Ganga Dhar Kalita Vs.
State of Assam, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 647 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has once again reiterated that criminal complaint
in respect of the property dispute of civil nature, filed solely to
harass the accused or to exert pressure in civil litigation,
constitute an abuse of the process.
40.3 In the case of Sarbjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab
and Another , reported in 2023 5 SCC 360 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has unequivocally held that entire idea to
convert a civil dispute into criminal by the Complainant, in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
18/23
order to put pressure on the accused for return earnest money,
could not be allowed to be done through criminal prosecution.
The criminal Courts are not meant to be used for settling score
or pressurize parties to settle civil dispute and allowing such
proceedings to continue, would be abuse of the process of the
Court.
40.4 Likewise, in the case of Shailesh Kumar Singh
@ Shailesh R. Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in
2025 INSC 869 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has disapproved the
practice of using criminal proceedings as a substitute for civil
remedy observing that money recovery cannot be enforced
through criminal prosecution where the dispute is essentially
civil.
40.5 The aforesaid legal principles have authoritatively
been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ankul
Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060, which are held hereunder:-
“…..20. Applying the above principles
to the facts of the present case, it is manifest that
the dispute – concerning repayment of loan

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
19/23
money and the alleged coercion in execution of
documents – is purely civil in character. The
essential ingredients of cheating or forgery are
not prima facie made out. The institution of
multiple FIRs in quick succession, particularly
after the appellant had already initiated lawful
proceedings, reinforces the inference of mala
fides…..”

41. In the instant case, the dispute between the parties
has to be seen in the background of dispute purely of civil
nature primarily on account of dispute relating to boundary
between the parties, for which a civil Court of competent
jurisdiction has already been moved by filing a Title Suit and
the same is pending between the parties before the learned Civil
Judge of Gopalganj, the very initiation of the criminal
prosecution against the petitioner by opposite party No. 2,
appears to be malicious one and has ostensibly been launched
with a view to settle score, as a counterblast to the case lodged
earlier by petitioner.
42. This instant case is nothing but an offshoot of
earlier complaint case filed by the complainant/opposite party as
Complaint Case No. 4229 of 2016 and in continuation thereof, it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
20/23
has been filed.
43. In the case of Eicher Tractor Limited and Others
Vs. Harihar Singh and Another , reported in 2008 16 SCC 763,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that:-
“….14. The case at hand squarely falls
within the parameters indicated in Category (7) of
Bhajan Lal case. The factual scenario as noted above
clearly shows that the proceedings were initiated as a
counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the
appellants. Continuance of such proceedings will be
nothing but an abuse of process of law. Proceedings
are accordingly quashed……”

44. In the totality of the factual and legal matrix
discussed hereinabove, this Court comes to a conclusive finding
that instant prosecution of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse
of the process of the Court, which is not only vexatious but has
also been initiated as a retaliatory measure and as such, the same
can not be and ought not to be allowed to be continued, in view
of well settled judicial principles as enunciated in the case of
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal , reported in 1992 Supp. (1)
SCC 335 which applies with full force in the present case, in
paragraph 102, categories 1, 5 & 7, which is as follows:

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
21/23
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation
of the various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(5) Where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
22/23
private and personal grudge."

45. Thus, in the aforesaid conspectus of factual and
legal discussion made hereinabove, the order taking cognizance
appears to be not only bad in law but is also reflective of total
non-application of judicial mind, where the learned Trial Court
have failed to apply his judicial mind, while going through the
averments made in the complaint application as well as at the
time of perusing the Statements of complainant and witnesses
recorded on oath, the perusal of which gives a clear,
unambiguous and explicit nature of civil dispute between the
parties and total absence of any specific allegation of any overt
act attributable to the petitioner.
46. As a consequence, the order taking cognizance,
being bad in law, is fit to be set aside and as such accordingly,
order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate-1st Class, Gopalganj in connection with Tr. No. 2278
of 2016, arising out of Complaint Case No. 4300 of 2016, taking
cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 387 and
120 (B) of the I.P.C. is quashed and set aside, qua the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49201 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
23/23
47. All the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom
are also quashed and set aside, qua the petitioner.
48. Accordingly, the present application stands
allowed.
49. All Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed off accordingly.

(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Smriti/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 28.07.2026
Uploading Date 18.10.2026
Transmission Date 18.10.2026