Patna High Court

Disputed Questions of Fact Based on Evidence Cannot be Adjudicated in Section 482 Quashing Proceedings

Anjani Kumar vs State Of Bihar and Anr

Patna High CourtJUDGMENT: July 21, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner sought to quash the cognizance order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the ACJM VI, Danapur, in Traffic P.S. Case No. 38/2015.

Source reference: para. 2

The prosecution case, initiated by a 2015 FIR, alleged that the petitioner rode a motorcycle (No. BR-01BJ/6269) in a rash and negligent manner, hitting the informant on Bailey Road and causing injuries.

Source reference: para. 3

The petitioner argued the case was a malicious retaliation for a criminal case he had filed against the informant on the preceding day due to an ongoing land dispute.

Source reference: para. 5-6
02

Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC on the grounds of being maliciously instituted due to private enmity.

Source reference: para. 6, 11
03

Law Applied

Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt by endangering life), and 338 (causing grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code.

Source reference: para. 2, 4

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], specifically Para 102, which outlines the categories of cases where inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of law, including cases attended with mala fides or those instituted for wreaking vengeance.

Source reference: para. 6, 10
04

Reasoning

The court observed that while the petitioner alleged malicious intent due to previous litigation, the motorcycle involved was registered in the petitioner's name.

Source reference: para. 9

The court reasoned that since the informant/injured party supported the occurrence in his version, there was no apparent reason to disbelieve the allegations at the preliminary stage.

Source reference: para. 9

Referring to the Bhajan Lal guidelines, the court noted that quashing is not warranted when the allegations, if taken at face value, constitute a prima facie offence.

Source reference: para. 10

The court determined that the truth of the "malicious prosecution" defense and disputed facts regarding evidence must be tested during the trial rather than in a quashing petition.

Source reference: para. 11
05

Holding

The court answered the issue in the negative and dismissed the petition, holding that the merits of disputed facts and the defense's argument of a false implication are matters for evidence during trial.

The court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, noting the incident dates back to 2015.

Source reference: para. 13
Patna High Court

Original Court PDF

Anjani KumarvsState Of Bihar and Anr

Patna High Court · July 21, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment