The High Court of Judicature at Patna has quashed an entire criminal proceeding against Rakesh Kumar Tiwary, ruling that the trial court failed to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements before issuing a summons. Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava delivered the decision, highlighting that the Magistrate’s failure to provide the accused with an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance constituted a significant legal infirmity. The ruling effectively brings an end to a protracted legal battle that originated from a complaint involving allegations of extortion and conspiracy, confirming that the judicial process cannot be weaponized for personal vendettas.

The case centered on a series of events involving a protest petition that was treated as a complaint after police filed a final report clearing the petitioner of allegations. The controversy began with Kadamkuan Police Station Case Number 281 of 2023, which was lodged based on allegations that the petitioner had orchestrated illegal acts. Following an investigation, the police concluded the allegations were groundless and submitted a final form. Despite this clearance, the complainant filed a protest petition, which the trial court subsequently converted into a complaint case. In May 2025, without issuing notice to the petitioner, the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Patna took cognizance of the offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons.

Justice Shrivastava’s judgment strongly reaffirmed that the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, creates an absolute bar against taking cognizance without hearing the accused. The court explicitly rejected the argument that this requirement was merely a procedural irregularity, labeling it instead as a core element of natural justice. A report requested by the High Court confirmed that no notice was ever served to the petitioner prior to the Magistrate’s order, a finding that Justice Shrivastava described as a serious violation of the legislative intent behind the new code. The court noted that this provision was explicitly designed to prevent the judiciary from becoming a tool for harassment.

Beyond the procedural lapses, the court scrutinized the merits of the complaint, finding the allegations to be inherently improbable and malicious. The petitioner, who was serving as President of the Bihar Cricket Association at the time, was accused of instructing Delhi Police officers to ransack an office while he was physically present in Mumbai for election-related activities. The court found that the complaint lacked essential details and failed to establish the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence of extortion. The judgment pointed out that the entire prosecution appeared to be a response to a separate investigation being conducted by the Delhi Police, rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.

In its critique of the trial court’s handling of the case, the High Court emphasized that summoning an individual is a grave judicial act that requires independent scrutiny. The judgment warned against the mechanical conversion of protest petitions into criminal complaints, especially when the allegations appear far-fetched. Justice Shrivastava observed that the complainant’s reliance on testimony from her own husband and staff members—both highly interested parties—further underscored the frivolous nature of the litigation.

Reflecting on the impact of such proceedings, the court cited judicial precedents to highlight the toll that frivolous litigation takes on a citizen’s life and reputation. As Justice Shrivastava noted, “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.” The court stressed that the judiciary has a duty to protect individuals from the “cobweb of frivolous proceedings” that can lead to long-term restlessness and financial strain for the falsely accused.

The court’s decision to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was bolstered by the conclusion that the litigation fell squarely within the criteria for quashing established in landmark Supreme Court rulings. Specifically, the court found that the prosecution was “manifestly frivolous or vexatious” and that continuing the case would serve no purpose other than the unnecessary consumption of precious judicial time. By examining the context beyond the mere averments of the complaint, the High Court demonstrated a commitment to preventing the abuse of legal processes.

The practical consequence of this order is the immediate closure of Complaint Case Number 15721(C) of 2024. The petitioner, who had been caught in a cycle of investigations and legal challenges since the initial filing, is no longer required to face the summons issued by the Magistrate. By choosing to resolve the matter directly rather than remanding it for a fresh hearing, the High Court emphasized that it would be unjust to subject the petitioner to further proceedings when the underlying complaint lacked any legal or factual foundation. The judgment serves as a robust reminder to trial courts that the procedural safeguards introduced in the recent legislative overhaul must be strictly observed to protect the liberty and dignity of individuals against groundless criminal accusations. The matter has now been set to rest, with all proceedings and the associated summoning order declared legally unsustainable and set aside.