Patna High Court
NATHUNI SHARMAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The order taking cognizance of the FIR is quashed as the prosecution is manifestly frivolous and vexatious.
Summary
The appellants, Nathuni Sharma and Chhedi Sharma, challenged the order of cognizance taken by the Special Judge under Sections 452, 376(D), 380, 506 IPC and Section 3(ii)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act based on an FIR alleging rape and robbery. The victim’s medical examination, conducted within hours of the alleged incident, found no fresh injuries and no spermatozoa, leading the doctor to conclude that sexual assault could not be ascertained. The police investigation and a supervision note indicated that the FIR was filed in retaliation for a separate case involving the appellant’s minor daughter and that the informant was influenced by the accused Babloo Pathak. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the prosecution was manifestly frivolous and vexatious, and that the Special Court had taken cognizance without appreciating the totality of evidence. Consequently, the order of cognizance was quashed and the entire prosecution dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR alleging rape and related offences is frivolous, vexatious, or malicious.
- Whether the Special Court erred in taking cognizance of the case despite lack of medical evidence and indications of falsehood.
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC/Article 226 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376(D), 380, 452, 506
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(ii)(v)
Subjects
- rape
- false FIR
- frivolous prosecution
- SC/ST Act
- quash of cognizance
- medical evidence
- abuse of process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1283 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2023 Thana- SC/ST District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. Nathuni Sharma S/o Late Amika Sharma R/o Village- Harla, P.S- Sonhan,
Distt.- Kaimur At Bhabua.
2. Chhedi Sharma S/o Hari Sharma R/o Village- Harla, P.S- Sonhan, Distt.-
Kaimur At Bhabua.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Laxmina Devi W/o Shivdas Ram R/o Village- Harla, P.S- Sonhan, Distt.-
Kaimur At Bhabua.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate
Mr. Anurag Patel, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Advocate
Mr. Hiralal Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Stat : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Sp.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
10 23-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
counsel for the Informant and learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The appellants have filed the present
application for challenging the order of cognizance dated
31.01.2024, passed by the learned Additional Session
Judge-1 cum Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Kaimur in
Bhabua SC/ST P.S. Case No. 28 of 2023. Whereby differing
with the police report, the learned Special Court has taken
cognizance against the appellants under Sections 452,
376(D), 380, 506 IPC and 3(ii)(v) SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1283 of 2024(10) dt.23-03-2026
2/10
07.07.2023, the informant, Laxmina Devi, wife of Shivdas
Ram, lodged the present FIR, bearing Bhabhua SC/ST P.S.
Case No. 28 of 2023 against the appellants, alleging that on
the same day at about 01:00 PM, appellant no. 1, Nathuni
Sharma, entered into her house and forcibly committed
rape. It is further alleged that subsequently appellant no. 2,
Chhedi Sharma, came at her door and appellant no. 1
opened the door thereafter appellant no. 2 also entered into
her house and committed rape. The informant has further
alleged that she works in JIWIKA and had kept certain
documents and Rs. 20,000/- in her house, which was also
taken away by both the appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the FIR was lodged at about 08:00 PM on the same date,
and the victim, aged about 40 years, was examined by the
doctor on the same day at 08:45 PM. The doctor, after
conducting the medical examination, including external
examination, observed that the hymen membrane was old
ruptured and healed; no internal injury was detected. Upon
pathological examination of vaginal and vulval swabs,
spermatozoa were not found. The doctor opined that, based
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1283 of 2024(10) dt.23-03-2026
3/10
on these findings, sexual assault could not be ascertained.
Accordingly, the submission is that the medical examination
of the victim does not support the prosecution story, as she
was examined within 24 hours of the alleged incident and
no signs of rape was detected. Further, the police, after
investigation, found the case to be false and submitted a
final form, exonerating the appellants from the charges and
they were not sent for trial.
5. Learned counsel further submits that, according
to the supervision note, the police found that the present
case lodged against the appellants was in retaliation of a
case filed by the minor daughter of the appellants, who was
kidnapped and raped by one Babloo Pathak of the same
village, where the husband of the informant was working as
a labourer. The supervision note records, based on the
version of co-villagers, that on the date of occurrence, i.e.,
07.07.2023, in the morning, the informant, who runs a
JIWIKA group, obtained the signature of the appellant’s
daughter on four plain papers on the pretext that she would
arrange a job for her in the JIWIKA group with a monthly
payment of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant’s daughter signed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1283 of 2024(10) dt.23-03-2026
4/10
the papers and later informed her father, appellant no. 1,
about the matter. Appellant no. 1 went to the informant’s
house but did not find her there. The villagers informed him
that she had gone to the house of Babloo Pathak, the
accused in the FIR lodged by the appellant’s daughter
bearing Mahila P.S. Case No. 15 of 2023 dated 08.04.2023
under Sections 376 and 366A/34, in which Babloo Pathak
was arrested and sent to jail. Thereafter, appellant no. 1
went to the house of Babloo Pathak and saw the informant
coming out of his residence. Appellant no. 1 demanded the
papers signed by his daughter from the informant, but the
same were not returned. Appellant no. 1, along with his
daughter, then went to the police station to lodge a
complaint, and upon learning of this, the informant
allegedly lodged a false FIR under Section 376 read with
the SC/ST Act.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants, thus
referring to the police report and the supervision note,
submits that the informant was a tool in the hands of Babloo
Pathak, and at his instance, she lodged a false, fabricated,
and concocted story, which is not supported by any
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1283 of 2024(10) dt.23-03-2026
5/10
evidence, including the medical evidence, except the
statements of her husband, daughter-in-law, and son, which
themselves are hearsay. The alleged offence is said to have
been committed in broad daylight at about 01:00 PM, but,
except for the aforesaid three witnesses, who are close
family members of the informant, no other villagers have
made any statement against the appellants. The FIR has
been lodged in abuse of the process of law and at the behest
of Babloo Pathak, who intended to put pressure on the
appellants to enter into a compromise in the case lodged by
their minor daughter.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
informant submits that the prosecution story has been
supported by three witnesses who are the husband,
daughter-in-law and son of the victim. At the time of the
alleged occurrence, they were not at home and when they
returned, the informant narrated the entire incident, which
was subsequently recorded in their statements during
investigation. He further submits that although the doctor
did not give any clear cut finding regarding the occurrence
of rape, the external examination suggested that the victim
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1283 of 2024(10) dt.23-03-2026
6/10
may have cleaned her private parts after the incident.
Learned counsel also submits that the victim, in her
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has
supported the prosecution story and the supervision note of
the DSP is a table report and he did not personally visit the
place of occurrence and also not recorded the statements of
any witnesses during course of investigation before arriving
at the finding that the case in question is frivolous and not
true.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the materials on record, including the
impugned order and investigation report.
9. The FIR was lodged on 07.07.2023 in the
evening, at about 01:00 PM on the same day. The victim
was medically examined immediately after lodging of the
FIR, at approximately 08:45 PM. The internal examination
revealed that the hymen membrane was old ruptured, and
healed. The doctor, based on the external and internal
medical examination, opined that sexual assault could not
be ascertained. Further, no spermatozoa, dead or alive, were
detected upon vaginal and vulval swabs.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1283 of 2024(10) dt.23-03-2026
7/10
10. The supervision note, approved by the SP,
narrates that co-villager Babloo Pathak, who was the
accused in the FIR lodged by the minor daughter of
appellant no. 1 under Sections 376 and 366A and went to
jail, was trying to get the matter compromise and upon
refusal by the appellant, the present FIR has been lodged
through the informant in order to put pressure. The
attending circumstances and the totality of facts, including
the medical evidence, does not support the prosecution
story.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in (2023) 20
SCC 219, Mohd. Wajid & Anr. v. State of U.P., and (2023)
20 SCC 194, Salib @ Shalu @ Salim, has observed that
when an accused seeks quashing of either the FIR or
criminal proceedings on the ground that such proceedings
are manifestly frivolous, vexatious or malicious, the Court
is duty bound to examine the matter with greater care. It
will not be just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose
of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1283 of 2024(10) dt.23-03-2026
8/10
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to
look into many other attending circumstances emerging
from the record of the case over and above the averments
and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to
read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of
the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a
case but is empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the
case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed
that once the complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal
vengeance, etc. then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the
averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they
disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence.
13. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the legal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1283 of 2024(10) dt.23-03-2026
9/10
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the
overall circumstances leading to the lodging of the present
FIR, as per the materials collected during the course of
investigation including the attending circumstances and the
fact that the informant’s husband was working as a labourer
with one Babloo Pathak, who was the accused in an FIR
lodged by the minor daughter of appellant no. 1 under
Sections 376/366A/34—this Court is of the considered
opinion that the criminal prosecution of FIR initiated
against the appellants are manifestly frivolous and
vexatious. Allowing the prosecution to proceed in the facts
of the present case would amount to a miscarriage of justice
and an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned Special
Court has taken cognizance without appreciating the
materials on record and in a mechanical manner.
Accordingly, the order taking cognizance and summoning
the accused/appellants, passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge-1 cum Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Kaimur, in
Bhabua SC/ST P.S. Case No. 28 of 2023, is hereby quashed
and set aside.
14. Accordingly, the entire prosecution against
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1283 of 2024(10) dt.23-03-2026
10/10
the appellants is also quashed.
15. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…