Patna High Court
DR. GAUTAM CHOUDHRY @ GAUTAM KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The magistrate’s cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) is valid and the quashing petition is dismissed.
Summary
Dr. Gautam Choudhry was accused of assaulting a woman who visited his clinic and her brother, and of using caste-based abusive language, invoking several IPC offences and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The police filed a closure report in his favour, but the Special Sessions Judge took cognizance of the case under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., issuing summons against the appellant. The appellant filed a petition seeking quashal of the cognizance order, arguing that the FIR lacked date and time, the police report should control, and the dispute was merely over medical expenses. The High Court held that a magistrate is empowered to take cognizance even if it differs from the police report and that factual issues must be decided at trial. Consequently, the quashing petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to raise defenses at the charge‑framing stage.
Issues considered
- Whether a magistrate can validly take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. despite a police closure report.
- Whether the absence of date and time in the FIR vitiates the cognizance order.
- Whether allegations under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can be dismissed at the pre‑trial stage.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 190(1)(b), 39
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354(A), 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- assault
- molestation
- caste abuse
- SC/ST Act
- cognizance
- quashing petition
- criminal procedure
- police closure report
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3711 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2021 Thana- SC/ST District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Dr. Gautam Choudhry @ Gautam Kumar, son of Dr. Chandra Bhusan
Choudhary, R/O Allahabad Bank, Bihpur, P.S.- Bihpur, District-
Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manisha Kumari, D/o Late Daso Paswan, R/O Village- Hariom, P.S.-
Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ranjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, Spl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-02-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and learned Special P.P. for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the
order dated 25.08.2022 passed in Special SC/ST Case No. 55
of 2021 arising out of Naugachia SC/ST P.S. Case No. 03 of
2021, registered for the offences punishable under sections
341, 323, 504, 506/34, 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(i)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to “SC/ST Act”) by the learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3711 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026
2/6
Additional Sessions Judge – III – cum- Special Judge, SC/ST
Act, Bhagalpur, whereby and whereunder learned trial court
has issued summons to the appellant to face his trial in the
aforesaid case.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on
26.03.2021, while the informant/respondent no. 2 had gone
to the clinic of the appellant for her check-up, the appellant
alleged to have caught her breast and when hulla was raised
by her, her brother came there, who was also assaulted by the
compounders and staff of the clinic of the appellant. It is
alleged that the informant/respondent no. 2 and her brother
were abused by taking their caste name.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that police after investigation
submitted closure report qua appellant and he was not sent up
for facing the trial whereas finding the occurrence true, the
charge-sheet was submitted against the other co-accused
persons.
5. It is submitted that prior to lodging this FIR,
appellant filed an informatory petition under section 39 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3711 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026
3/6
Cr.P.C. against the brother of the informant before the
learned CJM, Naugachia, Bhagalpur on 06.04.2021 and in
reiteration of that, on imaginary grounds, the present FIR was
lodged against the appellant making the informant
instrumental.
6. It is further submitted by learned counsel that
even upon facial perusal of the FIR, it can be safely gathered
that the date and time of occurrence are missing over there
which only strengthening the false accusation.
7. It is pointed out that in fact the dispute surfaced
regarding the medical expenses, out of which the present
false case was lodged. It is also submitted that no such caste
abuse was made by the appellant in public view.
8. Arguing further, it is submitted by learned counsel
that learned jurisdictional Magistrate took a different view
without assigning any reason and on this ground alone, the
order of cognizance qua appellant be set aside.
9. It would be apposite to reproduce the cognizance
order for better appreciation of case in hand, which is as
under:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3711 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026
4/6
“U;k;ky;] r`rh; vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh”k&lg&fo”ks’k U;k;k/kh”k
¼,l0lh0@,l0Vh0½] ,DV HkkxyiqjA
uoxfN;k ,l0 lh0@ ,l0Vh0 Fkkuk dk.M la[;k%& 03@2021
Spl Sc/St Case No- 55/2021
25-08-2022 vfHkys[k miLFkkfir fd;k x;kA bl okn ds vuqla/kkudrkZ }kjk ewy
vkjksi i= la[;k 26@2022] fnukad 18-08-2022 ds lkFk ewy ds”k Mk;jh i`’B la[;k 01 ls
50 rd izkFkfedh vfHk;qDr Mk0 xkSre pkS/kjh dks vuqiszf’kr fn[kkrs gq, vkjksi i= ds [k.M
11 esa ukfer vfHk;qDr dze”k% 01- lqeu Bkdqj 02- eks0 bcjkj vkye 03- mej Qk:[k ds
fo:) Hkk0 n0 fo0 dh /kkjk 323]504]506]34 ,oa ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0 ,DV dh /kkjk 3(1)(r)
(s)/3(2)(va) ds vUrxZr vkjksi i= vkt lefiZr fd;k x;k gSA ns[kkA izkFkfedh] vkjksi
i= ,oa ds”k Mk;jh ds voyksdu ls miyC/k lkefxz;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vkjksi i= ds [k.M 11
esa ukfer vfHk;qDr 01- lqeu Bkdqj 02- eks0 bcjkj vkye 03- mej Qk:[k ds vykos
vuqizsf’kr fn[kk;s x;s vfHk;qDr Mk0 xkSre pkS/kjh ds fo:) Hkh mijksDr /kkjkvksa ds vykos
Hkk0n0fo0 dh /kkjk 354(A) ds varxZr Hkh izFke n`’V;k dkjokbZ dk vk/kkj curk gSA
vr% vkjksi i= ds [k.M 11 esa ukfer vfHk;qDr 01- lqeu Bkdqj 02- eks0 bcjkj
vkye 03- mej Qk:[k ,oa vuqizsf’kr fn[kk;s x;s vfHk;qDr 04- Mk0 xkSre pkS/kjh ds fo:)
Hkk0 n0 fo0 dh /kkjk 323]354(A)]504]506]34 ,oa ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0 ,DV dh /kkjk 3(1)
(r)(s)/3(2)(va) ds vUrxZr vijk/k dk laKku fy;k tkrk gS rFkk okn ds fopkj.k ,oa
fu’iknu gsrq futh lafpdk esa j[kk tkrk gSA
fnukad 06-09-2022 okLrs vfHk;qDRkksa ds mifLFkfr gsrq dk;kZy; vfHk;qDRkksa ij lEeu
tkjh djsaA
ys[kkfir
g0@&
fo0 U;k0
,l0lh0@,l0Vh0 ,DV
Hkkxyiqj ”
10. Earlier, vide order dated 22.12.2022, notice was
issued to the respondent no. 2/informant, which was validly
served upon her, but none turned up on behalf of the
respondent no. 2/informant as to join the present proceeding.
11. Learned Special P.P. for the State, while opposing
the quashing petition, submitted that appellant is disputing
the factual aspects, which can be ascertained during the trial
only. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate is duly
empowered under section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C./210(1)(b)
of the B.N.S.S. as to take a different view from the charge-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3711 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026
5/6
sheet, as submitted, after investigation and, therefore,
merely on this ground the cognizance order cannot be viewed
with doubt.
12. In this context, learned Spl. P.P. relied upon the
legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through
Nahar Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
[(2022) 5 SCC 295], whereby learned Apex Court
highlighted the power of Magistrate to take cognizance under
section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. where it was held that Magistrate is
not bound by the police report and can take a different view.
13. It is also submitted by learned Special P.P. that
allegation is specific against this appellant as per FIR as to
outrage the informant while she approached him for her
treatment and when it was opposed, she alongwith her
brother were assaulted badly by compounders and other
employees of the appellant. It is also submitted that upon
investigation police found the occurrence true.
14. As far allegation under SC/ST Act is concerned, it
also appears that abuse under caste name was made prima-
facie in public view. Certainly merely as the date and time of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3711 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026
6/6
the occurrence is missing in FIR and the cognizance was taken
by learned Jurisdictional Magistrate by taking a different view
from the closure report as submitted qua appellant by police
after investigation, the cognizance order cannot be viewed
with doubt, particularly when the occurrence found correct
during investigation.
15. The issue raised by the appellant can be
ascertained only during the trial.
16. In view of aforesaid, the present quashing petition
is devoid of any merit, and, accordingly, same stands
dismissed.
17. However, the appellant is under liberty in view of
submission to raise all such issues at the time of framing of
charge, if so advised.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.02.2026
Transmission Date 19.02.2026
Checking your session…