IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11279 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2018 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1. Manisha Sharma @ Manisha Kumari D/o Satya Narayan Sharma R/v Manjhauli, P.S.- Sanjhauli, Distt.- Rohtas At Sasaram 2. Krishna Mohan Sharma s/o Nagina Sharma R/v - Malaw, P.S.- Darigaon, Distt.- Rohtas At Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Vikash Kumar Sharma S/o Kailash Sharma R/v- Kaniyari, P.S.- Dinara, Distt.- Rohtas at Sasaram ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raghunandan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-08-2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. Present petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) for quashing of order dated 24.09.2018, passed by the learned JM Ist Class, Bikramganj, Rohtas at Sasaram in Complaint Case No. 132 of 2018. 3. The prosecution case is that the complainant alleged that his wife/ petitioner no. 1 subjected his parents to abuse and assault, misappropriated their money, and terminated her pregnancy without his consent. He further Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11279 of 2019 dt.17-08-2026 2/5 alleged an improper relationship between petitioner no. 1 and 2. It was also alleged that the accused persons assaulted his parents and repeatedly demanded transfer of 3 bighas of land in favour of petitioner no.1, and threatened to kill the complainant and his family if the demand was not fulfilled. 4. On the basis of statement of complainant recorded under oath and also considering the statement of witnesses during enquiry learned magistrate took cognizance against petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 323, 379 and 504 of IPC. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 is the wife and petitioner no. 2 is brother-in-law of O.P. No. 2. It is submitted that prior to lodging of this complaint case, a complaint case was filed by petitioner no. 1 against O.P. No. 2 for the offence punishable under sections 498A of IPC and just to counter the said genuine complaint, out of oblique motive with malicious approach, lodged the present complaint case which is fit to set aside/ quashed. It is also submitted that the present Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11279 of 2019 dt.17-08-2026 3/5 complaint is not supported by affidavit and, therefore, its averment be not accepted correct, particularly in view of legal report as available through Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2015 (6) SCC 287]. 6. Learned counsel further relied upon para no. 102 of State of Haryana and Ors vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which reads as :- “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 give 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 informant 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 nay offence and make out a case against the accused. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11279 of 2019 dt.17-08-2026 4/5 (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 persons 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.” 7. Upon perusal of record and taking note of submissions, it transpires that petitioner no. 1 being wife lodged a FIR against O.P. No.2, which has been registered as Dinara (Bhanas) P.S. Case No. 349 of 2017 for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 354/34 of IPC alongwith ¾ of D.P. Act. It appears that to counter the aforesaid FIR, O.P. No. 2 filed the present complaint on 03.04.2018. 8. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of fact as admittedly the petitioner no. 1 is wife of O.P. No. 2 having matrimonial discord, where prior Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11279 of 2019 dt.17-08-2026 5/5 to lodging this complaint by husband/ O.P. No. 2, the petitioner no. 1 being wife has lodged a FIR, as discussed aforesaid, suggesting that the present complaint was filed with ulterior and oblique motive with harassing approach, coupled with the fact that the complaint in issue, not appears supported by affidavit, accordingly, the impugned order of cognizance dated 24.09.2018 with all its consequential proceedings, qua, both above-named petitioners, is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. Hence, this application stands allowed. 10.Trial Court Records, if any, be returned to the learned Trial Court alongwith the copy of this judgment. S.Tripathi/- (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.08.2026 Transmission Date 18.08.2026