Patna High Court
Chhatish Sharma @ Chhatish Kumar @ Satish @ Chhatish Kumar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the order of the trial court taking cognizance of the offences is upheld.
Summary
The appellant, Chhatish Sharma, appealed under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act challenging the trial court’s order taking cognizance of alleged offences, including rape, based on FIR No. 88/2024. He contended that the FIR was fabricated, that he had been shot by the informant’s family on the same day, and that the ten‑day delay in filing the FIR was unreasonable. The State argued that the victim’s statement was recorded in a hospital, that the delay was procedural, and that there were prima facie materials and witness testimonies supporting the allegations. The High Court examined the FIRs, case diary, and the proximity of the two incidents (a gap of about two hours) and held that the appellant’s defenses required evidentiary scrutiny at trial and did not warrant setting aside the cognizance order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s decision to take cognizance of the offences.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court’s order taking cognizance of the offences under the SC/ST Act should be set aside on the ground that the FIR is false and was filed with undue delay.
- Whether the existence of prima facie evidence and the victim’s hospital statement suffices to sustain cognizance despite the appellant’s claim of a prior firearm injury.
- Whether the ten‑day delay in registering the FIR vitiates the proceedings under the SC/ST Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- false FIR
- cognizance
- prima facie evidence
- delay in FIR registration
- criminal appeal
- rape allegation
- firearm injury
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2709 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2024 Thana- Mohanpur District- Purnia
======================================================
Chhatish Sharma @ Chhatish Kumar @ Satish @ Chhatish Kumar Sharma,
S/o Sri Vindeshwari Sharma Resident of Vill- Topra Ward No. 10, P.S. -
Mohanpur, Distt.- Purnea
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rekha Devi, W/o Sri Ajit Paswan Paswan, R/o Vill - Topra, Ward no. 10,
P.S. - Mohanpur, Distt.- Purnea
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Amit Kumar Anand
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
12 17-06-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the
appellant under section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (in short
‘SC/ST Act’), against the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the
Court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-
Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Purnea, in connection with
Special SC/ST Case No. 75/2025, arising out of Mohanpur P.S.
Case No. 88/2024, whereby the learned court below has taken
cognizance of the alleged offences against the appellant.
3. The main submissions advanced by the appellant's
counsel are that the allegations levelled by the informant in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2709 of 2025(12) dt.17-06-2026
2/4
FIR of Mohanpur P. S. Case No. 88 of 2024 are completely false
and fabricated, in fact, the appellant sustained firearm injury at
the hands of the family members of the informant on the very
same day of the alleged occurrence and in this regard, FIR
bearing Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2024 was lodged by the
father of this appellant against the informant of the present
matter and nine others and in that occurrence, the appellant
sustained gunshot injury on his neck and he was treated at
different hospitals and there are sufficient medical evidences to
prove the said treatment as well as gunshot injury. It is further
submitted that the alleged incident of rape is said to have been
committed at about 3:00 P.M. on 04.09.2024 but the FIR which
is based on the fardbeyan of the informant was registered on
14.09.2024 after the delay of 10 days without giving any
plausible explanation and further there was only a gap of 1 or 2
hours between the commission of the alleged occurrence of the
present matter and the occurrence forming the subject matter of
Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2024 and in that circumstances, it
was not possible for the appellant and the co-accused to commit
the alleged offence of rape with the informant and all these facts
clearly show that the FIR was lodged by the informant with
malicious intention in order to create a defence in the cross-case
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2709 of 2025(12) dt.17-06-2026
3/4
and the learned court below has taken cognizance in mechanical
manner without appreciating all these facts.
4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed
the prayer of the appellant and submits that in the case diary
which is available before this court, there are sufficient
materials to attract the commission of the alleged offences and it
is an admitted position that the fardbeyan of the victim was
recorded in Surgical Ward of the hospital, though there was
some delay in the registration of the FIR but the same was
procedural in nature as the fardbeyan of the informant was
recorded on 08.09.2024 and before that the victim had remained
under treatment at the Primary Health Center from where she
was referred to G.M.C.H., Purnea and further, the defence taken
by the appellant requires appreciation of evidence during trial
and at this stage, there are sufficient prima facie materials to
justify the order taking cognizance.
5. Heard both the sides and perused the order
impugned and the FIR and the case diary of the present matter
as well as of Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2024 lodged by the
father of the appellant, this court finds that though the defences
raised by the appellant as discussed above are relevant and
important but the same require evidentiary scrutiny during trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2709 of 2025(12) dt.17-06-2026
4/4
and only thereafter a proper conclusion can be made and one
thing is quite clear that the informant/victim recorded her
fardbeyan in the hospital and if the FIRs of both the cases are
taken into account then one thing is also clear that the victim
and the appellant were in close proximity during the relevant
period of time as there was a gap of only about two hours
between the commission of the two occurrences. Further, during
the investigation, some witnesses have supported the allegations
of the informant. Considering all these facts, this court does not
find it appropriate to set aside the order of the learned trial court
taking cognizance of the alleged offences against the appellant
and finds no merit in this appeal, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Rajiv/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.