In Ritambhara Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Soni Shrivastava delivered a 4-page long judgement dated August 21, 2026, wherein, she concluded:"this Court is of the considered view that no offence against the present petitioner is made out from the impugned FIR and continuance of any proceedings against a law professional made by some professional litigants would only amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and if such frivolous litigations are not quashed, the same would also set bad precedents. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion and also considering the fact that the present case falls within the ambit of category (1), (2), (3) and (5) of the State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, Pirbahor P.S. Case No.639 of 2024 and any prosecution therefrom, so far as it relates to the petitioner, stands quashed."
Although notice was issued to Madhuri Devi, the opposite party no.2 who is a resident of South Lakhibag
near Gauri Kanya Vidyalaya Manpur thana- Muffasil, which was accepted as validly served, she chose not to appear in the proceedings before the High Court.By way of filing the application, the petitioner had prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. bearing Pirbahor P.S. Case No.639 of 2024 dated September 21, 2024 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. In the First Information Report, it was alleged that are that the petitioner has abused, assaulted and pressurized the informant to withdraw the case (S.T.R. No.72 of 2020). It was also alleged that the petitioner was threatened to face dire consequences if the said case was not withdrawn.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted at the outset that the petitioner is an advocate by profession and the FIR is out and out a case of malicious prosecution on account of the fact that this petitioner happens to be the advocate of adversary of the informant. It was also submitted that the allegations made in the First Information Report itself, on the face of the record, do not make out any criminal case against the petitioner, much less the ones under which it has been alleged.
The Court's attention was drawn to an FIR which was lodged by the petitioner on the same date, which was in the form of a complaint before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Patna Sadar, disclosing allegations against the present informant who intercepted her while she was going to her seat in the Civil Court and threatened her of dire consequences. It was contended that the informant is a professional litigant which manifests from a number of cases, eight of which have been enumerated therein which has been lodged against different accused persons. On account of such grounds as advanced and especially in view of the case and counter case, the counsel for the petitioner had prayed for quashing of the FIR and any prosecution arising therefrom as against the petitioner, who is an advocate by profession.
Justice Shrivastava observed: "8. I have perused the entire materials on record and especially impugned FIR, upon perusal of which, I find that the allegations are totally vague and do not make out any case against the present petitioner. The narration of facts in the FIR read in juxtaposition with the FIR lodged by the present petitioner is also reflective of the fact that the present case is a malicious prosecution filed against the present petitioner only on account of the fact that she happened to be the counsel of the adversary of the opposite party no.2."
No comments:
Post a Comment