Manager Singh vs The State Of Bihar and Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7628 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010154222016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2003 Thana- BASOPATTI District- Madhubani
======================================================
Manager Singh, Son of Rup Lal Singh, resident of Village- Mehtar Patti, P.S.-
Basopatti, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sita Ram Thakur, Son of Abadh Thakur
3. Shyam Thakur, Son of Sita Ram Thakur
4. Parmeshwar Ram, Son of Basudeo Ram
5. Uttim Ram, Son of Anup Ram
6. Ram Bilash Ram, Son of Anup Ram
7. Jeebachh Ram, Son of Feku Ram
8. Ramesdhwer Ram, Son of Basudeo Ram
9. Saty Narayan Jha, Son of Yugeshwar Jha,
10. Mahavir Ram, Son of Basudeo Ram,
All are resident of Village-Mehtar Patti, P.S.-Basopatti, District- Madhubani.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Kant Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.1, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Ms. Kumari Pallavi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-11-2026
The present petition has been filed by the
petitioner for quashing of the order dated 30.09.2015
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V,
Madhubani in Cr. Revision No.502 of 2010 arising out of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7628 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
2/12
Basopatti P.S. Case No.15 of 2003, whereby he has affirmed
the order 12.04.2010 passed by learned C.J.M. Madhubani,
by which he has dismissed the protest-cum-complaint case.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
petitioner had lodged an FIR alleging that on 06.03.2003,
while he had gone to the Civil Court, Madhubani, in
connection with a title suit, his son informed him that
opposite party no. 2 had ploughed the disputed land with a
tractor. When the same was protested by the petitioner’s
son, opposite party no. 2 returned after extending threats.
Subsequently, during the night, the petitioner came to know
that his son, Sevak Singh, had not returned home. Despite a
search, he could not be traced. On the following morning,
the petitioner was informed by a villager that the deceased
had been seen in the company of opposite party nos. 2 to 10
during the previous night while returning from Jainagar.
Thereafter, the dead body of his son was recovered from a
wheat field. The petitioner suspected that opposite party nos.
2 to 10 had committed the murder of his son by pressing his
neck.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7628 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
3/12
3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan,
Basopatti P.S. Case No. 15 of 2003 dated 07.03.2003 was
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34
of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police
submitted a final form finding the case false for want of
sufficient evidence, which was accepted by the learned court
below. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a protest-cum-
complaint petition, which was registered as Complaint Case
No. 123 of 2007. The learned Magistrate conducted an
inquiry under Section 202 CrPC and examined the
complainant and the witnesses. However, by order dated
12.04.2010, the complaint petition was dismissed. The
petitioner challenged the said order by filing Criminal
Revision No. 502 of 2010, which was also dismissed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-V vide order dated
30.09.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the learned courts below have failed to properly appreciate
the materials available on record. It is contended that the
FIR specifically disclosed that the deceased was last seen in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7628 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
4/12
the company of opposite party nos. 2 to 10 before his dead
body was recovered from a wheat field. It is further
submitted that E.W. 2, Ghuran Singh, in his statement
recorded during the inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, stated
that he had seen opposite party nos. 2 to 10 fleeing from
near the place where the dead body was recovered. Another
witness, Shyam Sundar Singh, also stated that the deceased
was seen being carried away by the accused persons during
the night.
5. Learned counsel further submits that there was
a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife and
that the deceased was murdered by pressing his neck. It is,
thus, contended that the aforesaid circumstances, coupled
with the statements of the witnesses, sufficiently indicate the
involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the
alleged offence. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate
ought not to have dismissed the complaint petition without
properly appreciating the materials available on record.
6. Learned APP appearing for the State has
opposed the application.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7628 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
5/12
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials
available on record, this Court finds that the police, after
investigation, had submitted a final form finding the case
false for want of sufficient evidence, which was accepted by
the learned court below. Thereafter, the petitioner pursued
the matter by filing a protest-cum-complaint petition, which
was duly enquired into by the learned Magistrate in exercise
of powers under Section 202 CrPC.
8. It is evident from the materials available on
record that the learned Magistrate had considered the
statements of the complainant and the witnesses examined
during the inquiry and thereafter arrived at a conclusion that
no sufficient ground was made out for proceeding against the
accused persons. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned
Magistrate had passed the order mechanically or without
application of judicial mind. The order passed by the learned
Magistrate cannot be termed as an order passed without
proper consideration merely because the petitioner seeks a
different appreciation of the statements of the witnesses.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7628 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
6/12
9. In this regard, reference may be made to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods
Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.,
reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 , wherein it has been held
that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious
matter and the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial
mind to the facts of the case and the materials brought on
record before proceeding against the accused. The
Magistrate is not expected to act as a mere post office but is
required to examine whether sufficient grounds exist for
proceeding further. The aforesaid principle also emphasises
the necessity of judicial application of mind while considering
the materials placed before the Magistrate.
10. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant
para 28 of Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Case (Supra) which
is hereunder:
“28. Summoning of an accused
in a criminal case is a serious matter.
Criminal law cannot be set into motion as
a matter of course. It is not that the
complainant has to bring only two
witnesses to support his allegations in the
complaint to have the criminal law set into
motion. The order of the Magistrate

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7628 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
7/12
summoning the accused must reflect that
he has applied his mind to the facts of the
case and the law applicable thereto. He
has to examine the nature of allegations
made in the complaint and the evidence
both oral and documentary in support
thereof and would that be sufficient for
the complainant to succeed in bringing
charge home to the accused. It is not that
the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the
time of recording of preliminary evidence
before summoning of the accused. The
Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the
evidence brought on record and may even
himself put questions to the complainant
and his witnesses to elicit answers to find
out the truthfulness of the allegations or
otherwise and then examine if any offence
is prima facie committed by all or any of
the accused.”
11. So far as the allegation of the deceased having
been last seen in the company of opposite party nos. 2 to 10
is concerned, the same is essentially a circumstance which
requires consideration along with other connecting
circumstances. The statement of E.W. 2 regarding the
accused persons allegedly fleeing from near the place where
the dead body was recovered also requires consideration in
the light of the entire materials available on record. The
mere circumstance of last seen, without other supporting

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7628 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
8/12
material, cannot by itself be treated as sufficient to establish
the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged
offence. Similarly, the statements of the witnesses have to
be considered in the context of the other materials collected
during the inquiry.
12. The submission advanced on behalf of the
petitioner that there was a matrimonial dispute between the
husband and wife and that the deceased was murdered by
pressing his neck has also been taken into consideration.
However, the existence of a matrimonial dispute, by itself,
cannot establish the involvement of the accused persons in
the alleged occurrence. More particularly, the post-mortem
report, which is a document of unimpeachable character,
records the cause of death as “asphyxia due to hanging”,
whereas the allegation made by the petitioner is that the
deceased was murdered by pressing his neck. The aforesaid
medical finding assumes significance while examining the
allegations made in the complaint, as it does not prima-facie
support the specific allegation of death by throttling. In the
absence of any material explaining the discrepancy between

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7628 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
9/12
the medical opinion and the allegation made by the
petitioner, the mere allegation of a matrimonial dispute
cannot constitute sufficient ground to proceed against the
accused persons.
13. It is pertinent to mention that at the stage of
consideration of a complaint under Section 203 CrPC, the
Magistrate is required to examine whether sufficient grounds
exist for proceeding against the accused persons and not
whether their guilt has been established beyond reasonable
doubt. However, the materials available on record must
disclose sufficient grounds warranting further proceedings.
14. In the present case, the learned Magistrate,
after conducting an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC and
considering the statements of the complainant and the
witnesses, did not find sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused persons. This Court finds no material to
demonstrate that such conclusion was arrived at without
application of judicial mind.
15. This Court further finds that the petitioner has
already availed the remedy of revision before the learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7628 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
10/12
Sessions Court, which has examined the challenge and
declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Magistrate. In this regard, Section 397(3) CrPC places a
statutory bar on a second revision at the instance of the
same person. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC cannot ordinarily be invoked as a substitute for a
second revision petition.
16. Reliance must be placed upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash Verma v. Punjab
State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr., reported in
(2005) 2 SCC 571 , wherein it has been held that although
the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC notwithstanding the bar under Section
397(3) CrPC, such power is to be exercised only in
exceptional circumstances, particularly where there is a
serious miscarriage of justice, abuse of the process of the
Court or non-compliance with mandatory provisions of law.
In the present case, no such exceptional circumstance has
been demonstrated by the petitioner warranting exercise of
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7628 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
11/12
17. This Court is of the considered view that
permitting the petitioner to reopen the same controversy, in
the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity in the
orders passed by the courts below, would serve no useful
purpose and would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings.
The inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised to
permit vexatious proceedings or to provide another
opportunity for re-agitating an issue which has already been
examined by the competent courts.
18. In view of the discussions made hereinabove,
this Court finds that the learned Magistrate had applied his
judicial mind to the materials available during the inquiry and
the revisional court has also found no ground to interfere
with the said order. No patent illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error has been demonstrated so as to warrant
interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
19. In view of the discussions made hereinabove,
this court finds no merit in the present application.
Accordingly, the prayer of quashing the impugned orders

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7628 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
12/12
dated 30.09.2015 & 12.04.2010 is hereby rejected.
20. The application stands dismissed.
21. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to learned
trial court forthwith along with T.C.R., if any.


(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 05.11.2026
Transmission Date 05.11.2026