Geeta Devi and Ors vs State Of Bihar and Anr

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25542 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010462532016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-650 Year-2009 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI District-
Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Geeta Devi, wife of Vijay Sah
2. Smt. Poonam Devi @ Puniya
3. Pooja Devi
Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 daugther of Vijay Sah,
All resident of Mohalla & P.S. - Tilkamanjhi, District – Bhagalpur.
4. Boubi, son of Umesh Rai, resident of Mohalla – Mirjanhat, P.S. -
Mojahidpur, District – Bhagalpur.
5. Sandip Kumar, son of Late Suresh Yadav, resident of Mohalla – Sahebganj,
P.S. - Vishwavidyalaya, District – Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Minakshi Rani, daughter of Sadanand Singh, resident of House No. 96,
Jawaripur, P.S. - Tilkamanjhi, District – Bhagalpur.
... Opposite Parties.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md. Najmul Hodda, Advcate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-11-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and learned counsel for the State.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that petitioner no. 1 and 5 namely, Geeta Devi
and Sandip Kumar died during pendency of the present
application and, therefore, effectively this petition survives

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25542 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
2/7
only with regard to petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4 namely, Smt.
Poonam Devi @ Puniya, Pooja Devi and Boubi.
1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the
order dated 25.04.2016 in connection with G.R. No.
2880/2009 (Kotwali Tilkamanjhi P.S. Case No. 650 of
2009), as passed by learned A.C.J.M.-X, Bhagalpur, whereby
and whereunder learned Magistrate rejected the petition
dated 22.04.2014 registered for the offences under Section
239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and refused to
discharge the petitioners without considering the merit of the
case.
2. The prosecution case, as alleged in the written
report, is that on 17.10.2009, the informant was present at
her house along with her mother, brother and cousin when
the petitioners, along with some other persons, allegedly
entered the house and assaulted them. It is alleged that the
son-in-law of petitioner no. 1 fired at the informant’s mother
with a country-made pistol at the instigation of petitioner no.
1. The informant further alleged that the accused persons
assaulted her and her family members with lathi, danda and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25542 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
3/7
khanti, snatched her golden chain and took away Rs. 8,600/-
from the bag of her parents. It was also alleged that one of
the accused attempted to commit rape upon her. On the
basis of the written report, Tilkamanjhi P.S. Case No. 650 of
2009 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341,
323, 307, 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. After
investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the
petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 and 379 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that lodging of the present criminal case was
completely unoccasioned and unwarranted and arises on the
background of ongoing land dispute, for which one Title Suit
bearing No. 100/2010 is pending before the learned Sub-
Judge-X, Bhagalpur, initiated on behalf of petitioner no. 1.
4. It is also made clear by learned counsel that in the
ongoing land dispute, petitioner no.1 namely, Gita Devi
(since died) has filed Civil Writ being C.W.J.C. No. 13366 of
2007 ( Smt. Geeta Devi and Ors Vs. The Union of India &
Anr.) with respect to the aforesaid land before the High

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25542 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
4/7
Court of Judicature at Patna, in which Sadanand Singh, was
one of the respondent in the said Civil Writ, where vide order
dated 08.09.2008, the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to
direct the parties concerned to maintain the status quo over
the disputed piece of land.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Anukul Singh v. State of U.P. and Another reported in
2025 SCC Online SC 2060 .
6. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the
informant has opposed the prayer made in the present
application and submitted that merely because a civil
proceeding is pending between the parties, the criminal
proceeding cannot ipso facto be quashed. It is submitted
that there is no legal bar against the criminal and civil
proceedings proceeding simultaneously, provided the alleged
ingredients of the alleged offences are made out.
7. In support of his submission learned counsel relied
upon the judgement of Rikhab Birani & Another v State of
UP & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 823.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25542 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
5/7
8. Upon consideration of the materials on record and
the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it
appears that the genesis of the present criminal case lies in
an existing land dispute between petitioner no. 1 and the
informant’s father, Sadanand Singh. The petitioners have
brought on record the details of the land in question, which
was purchased by petitioner no. 1 through registered sale
deeds dated 21.05.1997, 23.05.1997 and 12.06.1997. It
further appears that disputes relating to the said land were
already pending between the parties, and petitioner no. 1
had also approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 13366
of 2007, wherein an order directing the parties to maintain
status quo was passed on 08.09.2008.
9. It further appears from the statements of the
witnesses recorded during investigation that there was an
admitted land dispute between the husband of petitioner no.
1 and the informant’s father. The independent witnesses
have also stated that no articles were snatched by the
accused persons during the alleged occurrence. Thus, the
allegations of theft do not find support from the statements

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25542 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
6/7
of the independent witnesses examined during investigation.
10. It is also relevant to notice that although the
written report contains serious allegations, including an
allegation of firing and an attempt to commit rape, the
police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet only under
Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal
Code. The materials collected during investigation,
particularly the statements of the independent witnesses,
have to be considered in the background of the admitted and
long-standing land dispute between the parties.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds
that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court. The dispute appears to have arisen out of a property
dispute between the parties, which had already given rise to
civil and other legal proceedings. Permitting the criminal
proceeding to continue, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, would serve no useful purpose.
12. Accordingly, impugned order dated 25.04.2016 as
passed by learned A.C.J.M.-X, Bhagalpur in connection with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25542 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
7/7
G.R. No. 2880/2009 arising out of Kotwali Tilkamanjhi P.S.
Case No. 650 of 2009 is hereby set-aside/quashed with all
its consequential proceeding qua above-named petitioners.
13. The application stands allowed.
14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned
trial court forthwith.


(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.11.2026
Transmission Date 03.11.2026