Anshu Kumari vs The State Of Bihar

Date : 11-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.

The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the Court of learned J.M. 1^st Class, Jehanabad in Sakurabad P.S. Case No. 38 of 2022, dated 05.03.2022 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the IPC.

The present case arises out of a written report filed by the informant against the present petitioner, who happens to be her own daughter and two other co-accused persons being Nagmani, who is her son-in-law i.e. the husband of the present petitioner and one Anjali Kumari, who is the grand-daughter of the informant and the daughter of the present petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner along with her family was trying to help her father i.e. the husband of the informant during the days when he was undergoing treatment and it was within the knowledge and consent of the informant that co-accused, Nagmani used to take out money from the ATM of her husband and spend it on his treatment. Subsequently, after the death of the husband of the informant, the present FIR came to be lodged against her son-in-law, Nagmani along with the present petitioner and her daughter, although, with regard to this petitioner and her daughter, there was general and omnibus allegations of indulging in fraudulent activity.

Further submission on behalf of the petitioner is that after thorough investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet only against the co-accused Nagmani and so far as the present petitioner and her minor daughter were concerned, they were not sent up for trial and the case was found false as against them. However, differing with the said final report dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure 2), learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance both against the charge-sheeted accused Nagmani and also the present petitioner. However, the impugned order only states that there is enough material but no material has been indicated in the said order while issuing summons against the petitioner also.

On the basis of these facts, it has been submitted that the present prosecution against the petitioner, who happens to be the daughter of the informant/O.P. No. 2, is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant opposes the present application by submitting that there are allegations against the petitioner also and there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance.

Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the materials on record, it appears that the case against the present petitioner was found to be false during investigation. However, the cognizance was taken vide order dated 12.05.2023 against the petitioner also and summons were issued thereunder but the said order does not indicate any material which appears against the petitioner so as to implead her also as an accused and for issuance of summons as against her. The narration of the facts in the First Information Report also does not indicate any specific act of fraud or forgery having been committed by the petitioner rather the thrust of the allegation is against co-accused Nagmani against whom, charge-sheet has been submitted. The column no. 10 of the charge-sheet, which should have contained the forged documents etc. for the purposes of making out offence under Section 467, 468 etc., is also blank.

Taking into consideration, the general, vague and sweeping allegation against the petitioner, who is the daughter of the informant and also considering the fact that no material transpired against the petitioner during investigation leading to the case against her being found false, the continuation of prosecution against the present petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Even in accordance with the law laid down in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this Court finds that no allegations are prima facie made out against the petitioner from the FIR and subsequently, the submission of final form in her favour is indicative of the fact that subsequent materials were also not found to substantiate allegations, if any, in the First Information Report.

In such view of the matter, in order to secure ends of justice also, the order impugned dated 12.05.2023, so far as it relates to the petitioner, stands quashed.

However, it is made clear that this order would not affect the case of the informant as against other co-accused. It has also been submitted that the next date in the matter for framing of charge has been fixed as 28.08.2026 and it is expected that the case against the other co-accused should proceed in the present circumstances.

The present application filed on behalf of the petitioner is accordingly allowed.