Abdullah Sah @ Baitullah Sah @ Baitullah Dewan vs State Of Bihar & Anr.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant interlocutory application has been filed for amending/adding the prayer for quashing of the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 354, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in a mechanical manner.

For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, the same is allowed.

Accordingly, the prayer made in paragraph no. 1 of interlocutory application shall also form part of the prayer of the main application.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.

Initially, the instant application was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 13.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV^th, Bettiah in T.R. No. 1365 of 2018 arising out of Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 194 of 2010, subsequently, by I.A. No. 1 of 2026, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 354, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the marriage of the complainant/informant was solemnised with one Reyaz Ahmad according to islamic rites and customs. At the time of marriage, clothes, jewellery, cash and furniture were given. However, her husband continuously demanded an additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her as dowry and subjected her to assault and cruelty for non-fulfillment of the same. He gradually sold her jewellery and under the influence of one Abdullah Sah @ Baitullah Sah @ Baitullah Dewan (petitioner herein), became addicted to alcohol and drugs. It has further been alleged that on 13.06.2010 at about 8:00 P.M., when the informant’s husband was in an intoxicated and unconscious condition, the present petitioner entered the informant’s room and allegedly attempted to rape her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Though he has been alleged to be a friend of the informant’s husband, he is, in fact, the purchaser of the land and the house standing thereon, which was sold to him by the informant’s husband through a registered sale deed dated 14.06.2010, whereas the present complaint case was instituted on 19.06.2010.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that subsequent to the lodging of the present F.I.R., the petitioner has also filed an eviction suit against the informant and her husband for eviction from the said house which was sold to him. It has further been submitted that the present case against the petitioner is attended with malice, personal vendetta and the same is vexatious as well as malicious in nature.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has submitted that the present case squarely falls within the Category No. 7 as discussed in paragraph 102 of the said judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1083, and has referred to paragraph nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment. It has further been submitted that there is a growing tendency to falsely implicate the family members and persons close to the husband in matrimonial disputes between the husband and wife, often with malicious intent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pepsi Foods Limited Vs. Sub Judicial Magistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749, and submitted that there must be sufficient material before the Trial Court to justify the framing of charges. Although proof of guilt is not required at this stage, the Trial Court must judiciously apply its mind to the materials collected during the course of investigation and satisfy itself that sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Md. Nausad Khan @ Md. Naushad Khan & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2024 4 BLJ 202, and while referring to paragraph nos. 19, 20 and 21 of the said judgment, has submitted that the Court has ample power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to interfere even if the case has proceeded to the stage of trial, provided that the continuance of such proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of law or the allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence.

Supporting his argument, he has referred to another judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 18.02.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 37331 of 2016 and has referred to paragraph no. 13, wherein reliance has been made upon the judgment of Md. Nausad Khan @ Md. Naushad Khan (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in its entirety, there are no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner, nor there was any prima facie material against him even at the stage of taking cognizance. It is further submitted that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would amount to a gross abuse of the process of the Court.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 have opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has submitted that the stage has considerably changed and the accusations have been explained to the petitioner, when petition filed on his behalf for discharging him from the case has been rejected and, as such, this Court should not interfere in the matter as of now. It has further been submitted that the allegation has to be tested during the trial and the petitioner may be directed to face the trial.

Heard the parties and perused the records.

Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the fact that the petitioner is the purchaser of the house as well as land from the informant’s husband and only thereafter within a week the present case came to be lodged, moreover, when an eviction suit was filed for eviction there appears to be serious dispute between petitioner and the informant coupled with the vexatious nature of allegation, continuation of proceeding against the petitioner would amount to a gross abuse of the process of the Court.

Resultantly, the impugned orders dated 13.02.2018 and 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV^th, Bettiah in T.R. No. 1365 of 2018 arising out of Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 194 of 2010, as also all the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed only with respect to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the application stands allowed.