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."

 

Vaishali Police directed to release vehicle because petitioner's role under offences of Excise Act is not forthcoming: Justice P. B. Bajanthri

In Pradyumn Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Principle Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices P. B. Bajanthri and Shailendra Singh passed a 2-apge long order which reads: "Therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali is hereby directed the release the subject matter of vehicle within a period of two days" because prima facie petitioner's role under the offences of Excise Act is not forthcoming. The subject matter of vehicle was under the custody of the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali and he was not arrayed as necessary and proper party. 

Justice Bajanthri observed: "Be that as it may, in all certainty the Superintendent of Police, Saran should have communicated the orders of this Court dated 12.08.2025 insofar as releasing the subject matter of vehicle on the admitted fact that the subject matter of vehicle was involved for the offences under theft read with the vehicle was involved for the offences under Excise Act on misuse of the vehicle by some miscreants...."

In his earlier 1-page long order dated August 12, 2025, Justice Bajanthri observed:"The Superintendent of Police, Saran, is hereby directed to verify whether the subject matter of the vehicle was seized in connection with the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for theft of vehicle) followed by theft vehicle was involved for the offences under the Excise Act and F.I.R. Registered on 24.12.2024. If these facts are genuine, in that event, the Superintendent of Police, Saran, is hereby directed to release the subject matter of vehicle in favour of the petitioner after due verification of records of the vehicle within a period of one week from today." The petition was filed in the High Court on July 17, 2025 and registered on July 31, 2025. 

Supreme Court upholds the order of Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh, Patna High Court

Upon hearing the criminal appeal of five petitioners, namely, Srikant padhayay, Shashikant Upadhayay, Srina Upadhayay, Ashutosh Kumar and Asim Priyanshu, Supreme Court's bench of  Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar concluded that "there is no ground for interfering with the order of the High Court rejecting the application for anticipatory bail rather not considering application on merits. Since their action is nothing short of defying the lawful orders of the Court and attempting to delay the proceedings, this appeal must fail. Consequently, it is dismissed." The case arose out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2020 Thana- Govindganj, East Champaran.

The 33 page long judgement authored by Justice Ravikumar was delivered on March 14 , 2024. The Court relied on Court's decisions in Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) and Lavesh v. NCT of Delhi (2012).

It all began with a pre-arrest bail application which was moved in connection with FIR No.79 of 2020, registered against him and co-accused at Govidganj, Police Station, District East Champaran, Bihar, under Sections 341, 323, 354, 354 (B), 379, 504, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. The Court refused to interfere with the order of Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court. In this case, FIR was registered pursuant to the directions of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari on complaint No.395 of 2020 filed by Ashutosh Kumar, Respondent No.4 under Section 156 (3), Cr. PC. 

The allegations in the complaint is as follows: On February 22, 2020, at about 8.00 am, when Jagmati Kunwar, the grandmother of respondent No.4 reached in front of the house of appellant No.2, Shashikant Upadhyay, he said that she is the witch who made his child sick and shall not be spared. Then, the appellants and eight other family members gathered around her and the 4th appellant caught hold of her hair and asked the others to bring dung. Thereupon, accused Paritosh Kumar brought dung and accused Rishu put dung into the mouth of Jagmati Kunwar. Consequently, she vomited and fell down. When respondent No.2/complainant and other witnesses went for her help, the second appellant Shashikant Upadhayay assaulted and abused respondent No.2. Co-accused Paritosh Kumar and Jishu Kumar tore the blouse of Kiran Devi and she was disrobed. Another co-accused Soni Devi snatched a gold chain from the complainant. The co-accused Ravikant and appellant No.5 tore the clothes of Jagmati Kunwar and made her half-naked.

In this backdrop, the five petitioners who apprehend arrest in registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379/354B and other sections of the IPC had filed a petition for pre-arrest bail in Patna High Court on November 22, 2022. It was registered on  December 1, 2022. 

Section 379 deals with "Punishment for theft". It reads: "Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Section 354B deals with "Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe". It reads: "Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of the High Court heard the matter and dismissed petition for pre-arrest bail of these five petitioners and dismissed it as not maintainable. 

The 2-page long High Court's order dated April 4, 2023 reads: "It is submitted on behalf of the State and the informant that petitioners have been declared absconder and processes of sections 82 and 83 have been initiated against them to ensure their appearance in the Court. Considering the aforesaid development, petition for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners is dismissed as not maintainable."