Patna High Court
RAJEEV RANJAN @ RINKU JIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that there was no reason to interfere with the order dismissing the revision, as the petitioner failed to produce evidence despite ample opportunity.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajeev Ranjan, filed a complaint under IPC sections 323, 379, 406 and NI Act section 138. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint after two years because the petitioner failed to produce any witness or evidence. The petitioner appealed through a criminal revision, which was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, who noted the same lack of evidence. The petitioner then filed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash the revision order. The High Court examined the record, found that the petitioner had been given ample opportunity to produce evidence but did not, and therefore saw no ground to interfere. Consequently, the petition for quashing the order was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the criminal revision should be quashed on the ground of alleged procedural irregularity
- Whether the failure of the petitioner to produce evidence after being given sufficient opportunity justifies dismissal of the complaint and the revision
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 379, 406
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- criminal revision
- quashing order
- failure to produce evidence
- IPC
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- complaint dismissal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1137 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2603 Year-2011 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
RAJEEV RANJAN @ RINKU JI Son of Late Virendra Kumar Proprietor
Shiv Cement Bhandar Resident of New Bypass Road, New Alkapuri, Police
Station- Beur, District- Patna. At present residing at Azad Enclave, Flat
No.302 (B), Van Vihar Colony, Police Station- Phulwari Sharif, District-
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. RAVINDRA SINGH Son of Late Birja Singh Managing Partner of M/S Raj
Construction, Resident of Village- Sheikhpura, Durga Ashram Gali, Police
Station- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna.
3. DIWAKAR KUMAR Son of Late Arya Nand Singh M/S Raj Construction,
Resident of Village- Sheikhpura, Durga Ashram Gali, Police Station- Shastri
Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gopal Govind Mishra, Adv.
For the State : Ms.Madhuri Lata, APP
For OP Nos. 2 and 3 : Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 12-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well
the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for OP
Nos. 2 and 3.
2. This is an application for quashing the order dated
19.12.2019 passed in Criminal Revision Case No. 623 of 2016
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Patna, whereby
and whereunder the learned court below dismissed the revision
application, which was directed against the order dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1137 of 2022(5) dt.12-02-2026
2/3
27.06.2016 passed by the court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.
2603(C)/2011 under Sections 323, 379 and 406 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Despite giving opportunities for two years, the
petitioner / complainant did not produce any witness before
charge. Having no option, the learned Judicial Magistrate, vide
order dated 27.06.2016, passed in Complaint Case No. 2603 of
2011, dismissed the complaint petition.
4. The petitioner / complainant preferred Criminal
Revision Case No. 623 of 2016 against that order which was
also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX,
Patna vide order dated 19.12.2019. While dismissing the
criminal revision, the learned Sessions Judge has mentioned that
from 16.11.2013 to 18.04.2016, the record was running for
evidence before charge but the petitioner / complainant did not
produce any evidence.
5. From perusal of the materials available with the
record, it appears that despite proper opportunities given to the
petitioner / complainant, he could not produce evidence and that
is why the complaint petition was dismissed and consequently,
the revision was also dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1137 of 2022(5) dt.12-02-2026
3/3
6. I do not see any reason to interfere with the
impugned order. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous
petition is dismissed.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.