Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra quashes order by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna because "second attempt to re-agitate the same allegations,...is clearly barred in criminal jurisprudence"

In Om Prakash Sharma @ Om Prakash vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra delivered a 6-page judgement dated February 2, 2026 concluded:"The order dated 09.02.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 3016(C) of 2017, and the entire criminal proceeding arising there from, is hereby quashed." 

The application was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated February 9, 2018, passed by the  Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, whereby cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the petitioner in Complaint case of 2017, instituted by Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Rekha Kumari. Notice was issued to Opposite Party No.2/complainant, which was duly served and she appeared before the High Court.

Rekha Devi's case was that in the year 2015 she had taken a shop situated at A.G. Colony, Patna, on rent from the petitioner after allegedly paying a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs on two different dates and advance rent of Rs. 24,000/-. It is alleged that after carrying out false ceiling and rack work and keeping garments worth about Rs. 10 lakhs in the said shop, a dispute arose between the parties, whereafter both the parties put their own locks on the shop. It is further alleged that the petitioner subsequently broke open the lock and committed theft of the articles kept therein. On the alleged inaction of the police, the present complaint was filed on August 7, 2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire complaint case was false, concocted and an abuse of the process of law. It was submitted that the complainant herself stated in the complaint petition that the police did not register her case, whereas Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 355 of 2015 had already been registered on the basis of information given by the Rekha Devi for the same set of facts and cause of action.

In the police case case, the petitioner had filed a discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. which was rejected vide order dated March 17, 2018 by the  Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna.

The said order was challenged before the High Court in Cr. Misc. No.28532 of 2018, and the Court, vide order dated May 4, 2023, allowed the application and quashed the proceedings. Despite the same, the complainant has again initiated the complaint case on identical facts, which is impermissible in law.

The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, arose out of a landlord-tenant relationship. The petitioner was the undisputed owner of the shop and the criminal colour was deliberately given to the dispute only to harass the petitioner. It was contended that the complaint petition did not disclose any material to prima-facie constitute the offence of theft under Section 379 IPC.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 as well as APP for the State opposed the application and supported the impugned order.

The counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner, without any prior information or consent of the complainant, unlawfully removed the articles kept in the shop and thereby committed theft, for which the present complaint case was instituted.

Justice Mishra observed:"....it emerges that the allegations levelled in the present complaint case are founded on the very same cause of action and identical set of facts which had earlier culminated in registration of an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings. It further appears that the earlier proceedings, arising out of the same allegations, have already been set aside by this Court. The institution of the present complaint, therefore, amounts to a second prosecution on the same facts, which is impermissible in law....it is manifest that for the same cause of action and identical allegations, an FIR had already been lodged earlier, which ultimately stood quashed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court. The present complaint case is nothing but a second attempt to re-agitate the same allegations, which is clearly barred in criminal jurisprudence."

Justice Mishra relied on Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, categorically held that criminal proceedings can be quashed where the allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention and instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused. He observed:"In the present case, initiation of a second criminal proceeding on the same facts, after failure in earlier proceedings, clearly falls within the categories laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra). Allowing such prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and result in harassment of the petitioner. 15. It is a settled principle of law that for the same set of facts and cause of action, a person cannot be subjected to repeated criminal prosecution, particularly when the earlier proceedings have already been adjudicated upon by a competent court. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order taking cognizance cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 17. Accordingly, the present application is allowed."