DHARMENDRA SINGH @ KUMAR DHAREDRA SINGH vs THE STATE OF BIHAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44572 of 2024
CNR No. BRHC010553602024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-609 Year-2020 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Dharmendra Singh @ Kumar Dharedra Singh Son Of Late Bijendra Deo
Resident Of Mohalla - Uttari Koeri Tola, Hilsa, P.S. - Hilsa, District Nalanda.
At Present Of Jeet Enclave Apartment, Flat No. 104b, Shivpuri, L.B.S. Nagar,
P.S. Shastrinagar, District – Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Ravindra Nath Son Of Late Raghavendra Deo Resident Of Mohalla - Uttari
Koeri Tola, Hilsa, P.S. - Hilsa, District Nalanda.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocae
For the State : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP
For O.P. No. 2 Mr. Udai Shankar Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-10-2026
1. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the
Opposite Party No.2.
2. By way of the present application, a prayer has
been made for quashing the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by
st
learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Hilsa (Nalanda), in
connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No.609 of 2020, whereby
cognizance of offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 337,
338 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and
summons have been issued thereunder.
3. The shorts facts of the case are that on 28.11.2020
while informant’s daughter was walking on her terrace, the co-
accused persons clicked photographs of her with bad intention.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44572 of 2024 dt.12-10-2026
2/6
On account of such photograph been clicked, all the named
accused persons entered in the house of the informant and
outraged modesty of his daughter and also assaulted her. It is
alleged that the said incident has been caused at instance of
petitioner, Dharmendra Kumar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after
thorough investigation charge-sheet was submitted on
31.07.2022 against some of the accused persons named in the
First Information Report, but the present petitioner was not sent
up for trial and his complicity was not found in the instant case.
5. It is further submitted that the learned Court of the
A.C.J.M. Hilsa, Nalanda, however, differed with the final form
and took cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 352, 504, 337,
338, 506/34 of the IPC against the other accused persons, who
were not sent up for trial, but the cognizance against this
petitioner was only taken subsequently on 15.04.2024. It is
pointed out that upon perusal of the FIR itself it would be
evident that on account of land dispute between neighbors, the
petitioner has falsely been implicated, on account of he being
agnate of the informant, which is evident from Annexure-3 of
the application. It is thus submitted that the present FIR has
been lodged with oblique motives and is reflection of a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44572 of 2024 dt.12-10-2026
3/6
malicious prosecution, as case has been lodged against the
prosecution party also by the accused persons of this case by
way of Annexure-4 bearing Hilsa P.S. Case No. 616 of 2020. It
has been submitted that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner was
not even present at the place of occurrence as he was posted as
Police Inspector, Sadar Anchal under the District of Rohtas and
he had never gone to his village Hilsa for the past twenty years.
6. This Court has further been apprised of the fact that
an application was filed on behalf of some similarly situated
agnates/ gotias of the informant, which was considered by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 13668 of 2023 and
vide order dated 30.04.2026, after having consideration all the
allegations, the impugned order of cognizance as against those
accused persons, was quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has
opposed the present application on the ground that the FIR bears
allegations against the present petitioner also and the learned
Magistrate found a prima facie case, differing with the final
form and took cognizance. There appears to be no illegality in
the said order, as such, it has been submitted that there is no
good ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at
the threshold stage of cognizance.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44572 of 2024 dt.12-10-2026
4/6
8. I have heard the rival contentions of both the
parties and have also gone through the materials that have been
placed on record.
9. Upon perusal of the FIR itself, it would be evident
that the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned amongst
those who committed the alleged offence and only in the later
part of the FIR, a vague allegation relating to complicity of the
petitioner, has been added on the ground that the petitioner was
trying to show his dominance and supremacy.
10 . It further appears that during investigation, the
police did not find his complicity and final form was submitted
in his favour vide F.F/F.R dated 31.07.2022 (Annexure-2).
However, by the order impugned dated 15.04.2024, cognizance
was taken, differing with the final form and this order has been
subjected to challenge in the present application.
11. By way of supplementary affidavit, R.T.I. report
has been brought on record to contend that at the relevant time,
the petitioner was present in Shivsagar Anchal, Rohtas, as he
was posted as police Inspector in the District of Rohtas. It is, in
any way, clear from the FIR itself that it does not talk of the
petitioner’s presence at the place of occurrence.
12. The records clearly reflect that a dispute had

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44572 of 2024 dt.12-10-2026
5/6
erupted between neighbours and the petitioner and some others,
being agnates, were also implicated. This is a counter version of
the incident also in the form of Hilsa P.S. Case No. 616 of 2020
lodged by Maya Devi, the neighbour of the opposite party no. 2
and also an accused of the present case.
13. It is on account of such reasons that no charge-
sheet was submitted against the petitioner and other agnates.
Moreover, the case of other agnates was considered by a learned
coordinate Bench of this Court and the impugned order, as
against them, was quashed. The case of this petitioner stands on
a much better footing, as he is not alleged to even being present
at the place of occurrence.
14. The learned Co-ordinate Bench had made a
reference to the case of Salib alias Shalu alias Salim vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh , reported in (2023) 20 SCC 194 , wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that cases which are filed with
ulterior motives for wreaking personal vengeance, the informant
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with
all necessary pleadings. But, in such cases the duty of the Court
is to not only look into the averments made in the
FIR/Complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
ingredients are made out or not, rather in such frivolous and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44572 of 2024 dt.12-10-2026
6/6
vexatious proceedings, the attending factors and circumstances
be also taken into account and if the need be the Court may also
read between the lines.
15. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also especially considering the fact that the
case of similarly situated co-accused persons have already been
quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure-6
to the supplementary affidavit and the case of the petitioner
stands on a much better footing, the case being covered by the
parameters of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in
(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 , falling within the category (1) and
(7), this Court would proceed to quash the order impugned. As
such, the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by learned Judicial
st
Magistrate 1 Class, Hilsa (Nalanda), and all prosecution arising
therefrom in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 609 of 2020,
so far as it relates to the present petitioner, is hereby quashed.
16. Accordingly, the present application stands
allowed.


(Soni Shrivastava, J)
aryan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.10.2026
Transmission Date 17.10.2026