Patna High Court
Sanjiva Kumar Singh @ Sanjiv Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 14 October, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30760 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-260 Year-2022 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Samastipur
======================================================
Sanjiva Kumar Singh @ Sanjiv Kumar Singh S/o Paras Nath Singh R/o Ward
No. 09, Gram- Pagra, P.S- Dalsinghsarai, Distt.- Samastipur, Bihar- 848114.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nand Kishore Singh S/o Late Bhagirath Singh R/o Gram- Pagra, P.S-
Dalsinghsarai, Distt.- Samastipur, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shashi Priya, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Murli Dhar, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-10-2025
Heard Ms. Shashi Priya, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Murli Dhar, learned APP for the
State.
2. The present application has been filed under
Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the order taking
cognizance dated 16.11.2024 in connection with Complaint
Case No.260/22, whereby cognizance has been taken by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalsinghsarai,
Samastipur under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 427 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. As per the allegation made in the complaint, on
29.05.2022at about 8:00 AM, the petitioner along with other Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30760 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025 2/15 named accused persons and several unidentified individuals allegedly entered the agricultural field of the complainant situated at Village Pagra, P.S. Dalsinghsarai, District Samastipur. It is alleged that the accused persons, by using a tractor, forcibly damaged the tomato crop of the complainant.
Upon protest, the accused no. 1 allegedly gave order to other accused to tie the complainant with a tractor and dragged him.
Accused no. 2 (petitioner herein), allegedly on the point of pistol threatened the complainant to shoot him in case he raised any protest. It is further alleged that the accused persons caused a financial loss of approximately Rs. 50,000/- by destroying the vegetable crop, and the accused Ram Snehi Singh had snatched Rs. 1200/- from the complainant's pocket. The complainant approached the local police who took no action, which led to the filing of an application before the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur on 22.06.2022. It is further alleged that on 23.06.2022, the accused persons had trespassed the complainant's land, armed with weapons, and started constructing an asbestos house. Upon protest, the complainant was allegedly assaulted and abused. The petitioner Sanjeeva Kumar Singh is alleged to have encroached upon the complainant's land by threatening him at gunpoint. It is also Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30760 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025 3/15 alleged that the accused persons have political patronage leaving no room for police action.
ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER
4. Ms. Shashi Priya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submit that by giving colour of criminality in the garb of dispute between the parties in respect of appointment of temporary trustee of Kali Mandir by the Chairman of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, the present complaint has been lodged. The trust is governed as per the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950.
The petitioner's father, Paras Nath Singh, was appointed as the temporary trustee of Kali Mandir, located at Village Pagra, Dalsinghsarai, pursuant to the decision of the Chairman of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Chairman regarding appointment of the father of the petitioner as temporary trustee, the opposite party No. 2 filed C.W.J.C. No. 21312 of 2013, which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.08.2017. The said order was subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1331 of 2017, vide order dated 03.05.2018. Learned counsel submitted that out of enmity and vengeance, the complaint has been lodged though the dispute is of civil in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30760 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025 4/15 nature and the allegation levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus.
5. The petitioner submitted that the complaint lodged against him is an attempt to criminalize out of vengeance and malafide intention. In fact the dispute arises out of the appointment of the petitioner's father as the temporary trustee of Kali Mandir, a decision upheld by the courts in C.W.J.C. No. 21312 of 2013 and L.P.A. No. 1331 of 2017. The Petitioner contends that the complaint, filed out of personal enmity, lacks specific or detailed allegations, rendering it overly general and without a solid criminal foundation. Furthermore, the petitioner highlights that earlier cognizance of the matter was taken by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, but it was subsequently set aside through a Criminal Revision Application, with directions for a fresh order to be passed. The petitioner emphasizes that the matter is governed by the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 and has already been adjudicated in civil proceedings, arguing that the criminal complaint is an abuse of the judicial process, driven by vengeance rather than legitimate criminal conduct.
6. Per contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that from perusal of the pleading made in the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30760 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025 5/15 quashing application, it appears that for the first time, the petitioner in the present quashing application has given information that out of vengeance because of the fact that father of the petitioner was appointed as temporary trustee, the complaint was lodged based on concocted allegations. Petitioner has not been able to show from the revisional order passed prior to the order taking cognizance dated 16.11.2024 that whether the criminal case has been lodged out of vengeance of the civil case decided by this Court in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that no interference can be made with the order taking cognizance dated 16.11.2024 under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Heard the parties.
8. The record reveals that against the earlier order taking cognizance dated 19.01.2023, the petitioner had filed Criminal Revision No. 177/2023, in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur vide order dated 26.09.2023, allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 19.01.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, and remanded the matter to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for a fresh adjudication in accordance with law which is reproduced hereinafter:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30760 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025 6/15 Petitioner is in attendence.
1. This criminal revision is directed under Section 397 and 399 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Dalsingsarai, in C.R. Case No. 260 / 2022 for setting aside the order dated 19. 01. 2023 wherein learned Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist Dalsingsarai, has taken cognizance against only one accused namely Sanjeev Kumar Singh, U/s 341, 323, 379, 427 of the I. P. C. and no proceeding was initiated under those sections and against other accused persons.
2. The instant Complaint case has been filed by the complainant Nand Kishore Singh Son of Late Bhagirath Singh, R/o Village- Pagra, P.S.-Dalsingsarai, District- Samastipur. The prosecution story as per complaint petition in brief is that on dated 29.05.2022 at about 8.00 A.M. all accused persons namely (1) Parasnath Singh, Son of Late Radhey Shyam Singh, (2) Sanjeev Kumar Singh Son of Parasnath Singh, (3) Ram Sanehi Singh, (4) Ekadas Singh both sons of late Baijnath Singh, (5) Nityanand Singh son of late Baijnath Singh, (6) Parmanand Singh Son of Late Baijnath Singh and (7) Mukund Kumar Son of Ram Sanehi Singh, all R/o Village- Pagra, P.S. - Dalsinghsarai, District- Samastipur and five-seven other miscreants forcefully started ruining the tomato crop of the complainant by crushing it by the tractor. When the complainant forbade them not to ruin his crop then accused no. 1 gave order to tie him wich the tractor and drag him into the field. Accused No. 2 put the pistol on the temple of the complainant and threatened him not to raise protest otherwise he shot him. All the accused persons ruined the vegetable crop of the complainant and thereby causing damage of Rs.50000/- to the complainant. Accused Ram Sanehi Singh snatched Rs. 1200/- from the pocket of the complainant. The complainant complained the incident to the local police station but no action has been taken by the police. On dated 22.06.2022 the complainant sent an application to the S.P. Samamstipur. On dated 23.06.2022 all the accused persons armed with Arms and ammunitions started making asbestos house on the land of the complainant. When the complainant forebade them, then they started assaulting the complainant while abusing. Accused Sanjeev Kumar Singh forcefully encroached the land of the complainant showing fear of the pistol. All the accused persons are muscle power men having political influence. They committed the crime against the complainant one by one.
3. On the basis of written complaint of the complainant, it registered as Complaint Case No.-260/2022. After enquiry learned A.C.J.M. 1st Dalsingsarai took cognizance against Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30760 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025 7/15 only one accused namely Sanjeev Kumar Singh U/s 341, 323, 379, 427 of the I.P.C..and no proceeding was initiated under those sections and against other accused persons.
4. In course of defense argument learned lawyer for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order dated 19.01.2023 is erroneous in the eye of law and without appreciation of the fact and evidences made available by the complainant in the form of S.A. and inquiry witnesses etc. and without applying its judicial mind learned lower court has passed order to summons against only one accused namely Sanjeev Kumar Singh aged about 50 years son of Parasnath Singh, R/o Village-
Pagra, P.S.- Dalsinghsarai, District- Samastipur for the offence committed under Section 341, 323, 379 and 427 of the I.P.C. whereas having gone through the S.A. of complainant and subsequently inquiry witnesses No. 1 Rajan Kumar and inquiry witness No.2 Ganga Paswan son of Sonelal Paswan and inquiry witness No.3 Jamun Paswan son of late Sonelal Paswan, R/o Village- Pagra, P.S.- Dalsinghsarai, District-
Samastipur. It will'évident that there is sufficient material against all the accused persons mentioned in the complaint petition i.e. (1) Parasnath Singh, Son of Late Radhey Shyam Singh, (2) Ram Sanehi Singh, (3) Ekadas Singh both sons of late Baijnath Singh, (4) Nityanand Singh son of late Baijnath Singh, (5) Parmanand Singh Son of Late Baijnath Singh and (6) Mukund Kumar Son of Ram Sanehi Singh, all R/o Village- Pagra, P.S.- Dalsinghsarai, District- Samastipur. Further the offence alleged to be committed under Section 147, 148, 447, 343, 322, 427, 385, 504/34 of the I.P.C. but ignoring all these evidences the statement of the complainant and inguiry witnesses learned court below has grossly violated the provision of law prescribed in relation thereto specially the statement of inquiry witness Rajan Kumar and inquiry witness No.2 Ganga Paswan along with Jamun Paswan as well, who have stated in their deposition that on 29th day of June 2022 at about 8.00 A.M. accused Parasnath Singh, along with their sons and people in number 40 to 45, all of sudden appeared and assaulted over the complainant along with other accused persons whose name has been mentioned in the complaint petition. But the same fact has been ignored best reason known to the Court below, whereas as per law only prima facie case is seen for the summons to the accused persons in the light of material made available by the prosecution, hence your honour be pleased to set aside the order and be directed to take cognizance as afresh on the part of the court below in the light of material available on the record.
5. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. protected the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30760 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025 8/15 cognizance order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned court of A.C.J.M. -I in connection with C.R. No260/2022 with submission that in the light of evidence made available by the complainant which is erroneous one rightly passed the order finding no material against the other accused persons and section as well. It was further submitted that in complaint petition the name of inquiry witnesses were given by the complainant as (1) Ashok Kumar Singh aged about 45 years son of late Jitendra Singh. (2) Manu Singh aged about 55 years son of late Balram Singh, (3) Mukesh Kumar Rana aged about 40 years Son of Ram Prasad Rai and (4) Rajan Kumar Singh aged about 30 years Son of Late Mahesh Prasad Singh, all R/o Village- Pagra, P.S.- Dalsinghsarai, District-Samastipur has been mentioned but during course of inquiry out of four inquiry witnesses mentioned in complaint petition only one witness No. 04 Rajan Kumar Singh has been produced by the complainant to make his deposition but other two complainant witnesses whose named has not been incorporated in the column of witness list rather one Ganga Paswan son of Sonelal Paswan and Jamun Paswan son of late Sonelal of the same village i.e. Pangra, P.S.- Dalsingsarai, District- Samastipur were produced without seeking permission of the Court and why other witnesses whose name has been mentioned in the complaint petition list 1 to 3 have not been produced best reason known to the complainant,but that has not been explained properly which appears to be false and deceitful intention of the complainant, whereas law expects from the reliefs seeker to approach the court with clean hand. But having gone through the record your honour will find that other than list of the witnesses stranger witnesses have been produced by the complainant. In this way a question arises that how court can take cognizance on the basis of false evidence so-called. Therefore, in the light of the above facts and discussion, it is requested that the order of learned court below be confirmed and requires no interference in it rather the revision application is fit to be dismissed.
6. Heard rival contention of both the sides and perused the case record thereafter convincing with the contention of learned A.P.P. so far as name of inquiry witness is concerned and having found no reasonable explanation on the part of the court that why he has taken down the evidence of inquiry witness other than witness list as provided by the complainant in written, so far as taking the cognizance in all sections against all the accused persons mentioned in complaint petition is concerned in this regard some certain fact and evidence have been overlooked, it is not in proper in the law and entire proceeding of the cognizance prima facie appears to be erroneous in both modes i.e. recording of evidence and on that very basis cognizance was taken by the court below which needs Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30760 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025 9/15 interference, therefore,
7. Therefore, considering the facts and evidences as well as argument of both the sides, I am of the view that this case is fit to be remanded back for passing afresh order on the part of the court below in the light of material made available by the complainant, however, it is other than witness list as provided by the complainant it is also requires to be scrutinized on the part of the court below that in which circumstances without permission of the court why complainant has produced different inquiry witness during recording of the statement. Moreover, Court is not expected to be prejudiced from this order so far as revaluation of the evidence and scrutiny thereof is concerned and directed to apply its judicial mind in the light of material available on the record.
Accordingly, the impugned order of cognizance dated 19.01.2023 is hereby set aside with direction to the office clerk is remand back the case record to the court concerned for passing afresh order in the light of material made available on the part of the complainant and further it is also directed that court below will consider the fact that under what circumstances complainant has produced the different inquiry witnesses whose name has not been mentioned in complaint petition without the permission of the Court.
8. Let, the LCR be returned along with order of this court to the Court concerned with direction to the office clerk to consign the record after necessary.compliance, if any.
9. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has taken cognizance vide order dated 16.11.2024 under sections 341, 323, 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. From above, there is no reference regarding the background of the dispute. The petitioner has also not stated whether any information regarding the cases relating to the Kali Mandir Management was placed before the learned District Court leading to filing of a false case.
11. The provisions of Sections 341, 323, 379 and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30760 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025 10/15 427 of the Indian Penal Code are reproduced hereinafter:
"341. Punishment for wrongful restraint. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
379. Punishment for theft.
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."
12. In the background of the above allegation, I find it apt to refer the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2621, wherein, the Apex Court while considering to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings found it that the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care like many other attending circumstances emerging from the records. In paragraph no.8, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"8. After identifying certain allegations in the Complaint/FIR, the High Court came to a quick conclusion that there are specific allegations against each of the accused. After referring to certain precedents on the scope and ambit of the power under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court came to a conclusion that exercise of power under Section 482 for quashing an FIR/Complaint is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30760 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025 11/15 case. Beyond holding that there are specific allegations, there is no other analysis. The duty of the High Court, when its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked on the ground that the Complaint/FIR is manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, to examine the allegations with care and caution is highlighted in a recent decision of this Court in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P.1:
"34. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRS assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30760 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025 12/15 wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."
13. The Apex Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673, has already clarified that the Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court." In this regard, paragraph no. 12 would be relevant to be reproduced hereinafter:
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."
14. Further, I find it apt to refer the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal reported in, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein in paragraph no.
102, the apex court has held as under:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30760 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025 13/15 " 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30760 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025 14/15
15. It is therefore manifest from the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even assuming for the sake of argument, that the materials on record successfully disclose criminality rendering criminal prosecution maintainable in law.
The Revisional Court while setting aside the cognizance order dated 19.01.2023, remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate for passing a fresh order, at the same time, it has not discussed the background, necessary facts and the circumstances for the purpose of ascertaining, whether the necessary ingredient to constitute alleged offence are disclosed or not and many other attending circumstances emerging from the records of the case over and above the content of the complaint has totally been ignored to consider the background fact, due to personal enmity in respect of the appointment of trustee of a Kali Mandir. The complaint has been lodged by the complainant / opposite party no.2.
16. I, therefore, find that the learned Magistrate upon remand could not have taken cognizance without considering the attending circumstances emerging from the records of the case.
17. Accordingly, I set aside the order taking cognizance dated 16.11.2024 pending in the court of learned Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30760 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025 15/15 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur and also direct the contesting parties to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur binding the court to issue notice to all the contesting parties.
18. It would be open to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur for giving necessary priority for disposal of the matter.
19. The quashing application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 18.10.2025 Transmission Date 18.10.2025