Supreme Court's Division Bench reverses decision of Justice Partha Sarthy which endorsed cognizance order of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Biharsharif (Nalanda)

In Parmanand Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran observed:"In any case considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offences and the sequence therein, it appears to be a false case and we are of the opinion that in this case, the High Court ought to have invoked the power under Section 482 of the Code and should have against the petitioner. We do not think there is any justification here in this case for the petitioner to undergo trial." It allowed the prayer of the petitioner and quash the criminal proceedings. The 3-page long order was passed on April 29, 2025.  

The petitioner was an accused in a complaint case instituted at the instance of Rohit Raj, the respondent no.2-complainant pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharshariff, Nalanda, Bihar, or the offences punishable under 379, 504, 506, 120(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) where the Court took cognizance under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC against the petitioner. His petition against this order, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed by Justice Partha Sarthy of the Patna High Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. The Court had stayed further proceedings in the complaint against the petitioner by its order dated November 11, 2024. 

Section 323 deals with voluntarily causing hurt. This section punishes anyone who intentionally causes harm to another person, excluding cases covered under Section 334. The punishment for this offense can be imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to 1,000 rupees, or both.

Section 504 deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. This section penalizes individuals who intentionally insult someone, thereby provoking them to commit a breach of the peace or other offenses. The punishment for this offense can be imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.

Section 506 deals with criminal intimidation. This section addresses criminal intimidation, which includes making threats to cause death or grievous hurt, or to commit other serious offenses. The punishment for this offense can vary depending on the severity of the threat, ranging from up to two years of imprisonment and/or a fine for simple intimidation, to up to seven years of imprisonment, a fine, or both for more severe threats.

The complaint stated that the petitioner along with another person had attacked on the respondent no.2-the complainant. There are no injuries and the case inter-alia is registered under Section 307 of the IPC, which addresses the offense of attempt to murder.. The fact of the matter is that prior to one month from filing of the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner had lodged an FIR against the respondent no.2-the complainant along with another person for having attacked the petitioner who is a practicing lawyer in Patna. It is from the very same transaction, where the complainant had gone to the office of the petitioner with the another person that the complaint was raised after one month. 

In his 7-page long order dated July 11, 2024, Justice Partha Sarthy had concluded: "in the opinion of the Court, there is no illegality in the order impugned dated 5.7.2023 passed in Complaint Case no.135C of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Biharsharif (Nalanda) taking cognizance under sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code".

He observed: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, this Court finds that in the complaint (Annexure-1) filed by the complainant, there is no direct allegation against the petitioner along with one another of having abused and assaulted the complainant and others. Though the petitioner has made substantial points of an earlier FIR having been lodged by him being Bihar P.S. Case no.28 of 2023 on 8.1.2023 with respect to the occurrence of the same date as in the present complaint, the Investigating Officer having found the contents of the said FIR to be true and having submitted chargesheet no.194 of 2023 on 28.2.2023 together with the delay in filing of the instant complaint, in the opinion of the Court, these points being the defence of the petitioner could not have been looked into by the learned trial Court at the time of taking cognizance. The Court was required only to see the contents of the complaint petition together with the statement of the complainant and the witnesses examined in support of the complaint during enquiry. The Court did not have the jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint." He made reference to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar & Anr.; (1985) 2 SCC 370 and M/s. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. vs. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors.; (2000) 3 SCC 269.