Gunjan Kumar Lal vs State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 06-08-2026

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. No one appears on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.

This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 29994(C) of 2014, registered under Sections 506, 504, 323, 354, 406, 384, 376, 447 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, has taken cognizance under Section 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Sushma Sahay, aged about 50 years and employed with Janani, NGO, instituted the present complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, on 29.11.2014 alleging that on 06.11.2014, at about 7.00–8.00 p.m., Donald Douglas, the National Head of the organisation, called her to his room on the pretext of discussing her promotion and increment. According to the complaint, she went to his room accompanied by one Kanti Devi and found the present petitioner, Gunjan Kumar, already present there. Further, it is alleged that Donald Douglas caught hold of one of her hands and asked her to "adjust", stating that he had been asking her to do so for a considerable period, while the petitioner allegedly caught hold of her other hand. Donald Douglas started inappropriately touching the complainant and the petitioner also engaged in the same conduct. On hearing the complainant cries, a catering staff member entered the room and intervened. Thereafter, Kanti Devi also entered the room and witnessed the incident.

It is further alleged that immediately after the occurrence, the complainant, accompanied by Kanti Devi and the catering boy, went to the concerned police station, where the Inspector advised her to return on the following day. However, she did not revisit the police station and instead disclosed the incident to her husband and father-in-law on the next day. The complainant has further alleged that after the petitioner joined the Patna office on 01.09.2013, the work previously assigned to her was entrusted to him, although she continued to receive a monthly salary of about Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present complaint was instituted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It has further been submitted that the present case has been instituted with malice, personal vendetta, and an intent to settle personal scores and the allegations have been made in the backdrop of a series of previous events which the complainant has deliberately suppressed. It has further been submitted that the petitioner joined the NGO as Director (Finance) in September, 2013 and was also entrusted with the charge of Administration, a position which had earlier been held by the complainant prior to the petitioner's joining. It has further been submitted that the complainant initially joined the NGO as a Receptionist in the year 1996 and was promoted from time to time. In May, 2013, she was appointed as Manager In-charge of Administration. It has also been submitted, with reference to Annexure-2, a letter dated 24.12.2012, that one Dr. Pranita Sinha had lodged a complaint before the Deputy Director of Janani NGO regarding the complainant's refusal to discharge work assigned by the Administration Department. It has further been submitted that Donald Douglas, Country Head of Janani NGO, issued a warning to the complainant on 13.01.2014 after it was observed that she had been taking leave without prior intimation and frequently reporting late to the office. Another warning was issued to her on 26.08.2014 directing her to obtain prior approval before proceeding on leave. It has further been submitted that, as there was no improvement in the complainant's conduct, Donald Douglas, Country Head of Janani NGO, ordered her transfer from Patna to Bhopal on 17.11.2014. However, the complainant refused to accept the transfer order. Thereafter, her conduct was found to constitute gross misconduct and accordingly her services were terminated by the General Manager, Human Resource Department of Janani NGO under the order dated 17.11.2014. It has also been submitted that on 17.11.2014 a written report was also lodged against the complainant before Agam Kuan Police Station and Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna regarding the threat given by the complainant to Donald Douglas Country Head of Janani NGO. Lastly, it has been submitted that the present case has been lodged against the petitioner with a malicious and vindictive intent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Eicher Tractors Ltd. & Ors. vs. Harihar Singh & Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 763, and has submitted that where allegations are vexatious and malicious in nature, particularly when the complainant has been proceeded against earlier, such prosecution would fall within the category of proceedings instituted with an intent to settle personal scores. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, as well as Mahmood Ali & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2023) 15 SCC 488, and has submitted that criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed essentially on the ground that such proceeding are manifestly frivolous or vexatious, or have been instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance. It has been submitted that, in such circumstances, the Court is under a duty to scrutinize the criminal prosecution with greater care and caution. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749. It has been submitted that the Court should not take cognizance against an accused in a mechanical manner and the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind to the allegations made in the complaint and the materials placed before him and to satisfy himself that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It has further been submitted that the Magistrate must not issue process against an accused without due application of judicial mind. Lastly, it has been submitted that the present prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court.

Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

Heard the parties and perused the record.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the materials available on record, it appears that the complainant proceeded against the petitioner only after serious allegations had been levelled against her followed by the termination of her services and the institution of criminal proceedings against her at a police station. In such circumstances, the present prosecution against the petitioner appears to be vexatious and malicious one. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the present prosecution against the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the present prosecution is an abuse of the process of law.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,1^st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 29994 of 2014, is hereby quashed.