Raju PaswanversusState Of Bihar and Anr

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14493 of 2016
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2049 Year-2014 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Jamui
                 ======================================================
                 Raju Paswan S/O- Sahdeo Paswan, resident of village- Bahadurpur, P.S.-
                 Sikandara, District- Jamui



                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    State of Bihar
           2.    Nawal Kishore Ram, S/o- Tanikdeo Ram, resident of village- Bahadur Pur,
                 P.S.- Sikandara, District- Jamui



                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State           :       Mr. Awdhesh Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   27-01-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner

                   under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

                   (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the order dated

                   24.06.2015 passed by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

                   Jamui, in Case No. 2049C/2014, whereby the learned Chief

                   Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences

                   punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal

                   Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) as well as the offence

                   under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14493 of 2016(3) dt.27-01-2026
                                            2/4




                       3. Mr. Amrendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing

          for the petitioner, submits that there is a civil dispute in between

          the petitioner and the informant, and in this regard, Annexure-7

          is relevant. It is further submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 had

          earlier lodged Sikandara P.S. Case No. 11 of 2008 on the same

          set of allegations, which were found to be false and

          consequently, the police submitted a final form exonerating the

          petitioner from all the allegations, thereafter, the informant

          approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 1237 of

          2010, wherein the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui,

          accepting the final form was set aside and the concerned court

          was directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

          Subsequently, the protest petition filed by Opposite Party No. 2

          was treated as a complaint case and after examination of certain

          witnesses, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged

          offences in a mechanical manner.

                       4. On the other hand, Mr. Awdhesh Kumar Singh,

          learned APP appearing for the State, submits that the protest

          petition filed by Opposite Party No. 2 was treated as a complaint

          by the concerned Magistrate, and certain witnesses were

          examined on oath thereafter, the impugned order taking

          cognizance of the alleged offences was passed upon finding
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14493 of 2016(3) dt.27-01-2026
                                            3/4




          prima facie material to attract the said offences. It is further

          submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

          Moreover, as the case against the petitioner is presently at the

          stage of evidence, the prayer made by the petitioner has become

          infructuous.

                       5. Heard both the sides and perused the impugned

          order as well as the other relevant materials on record. Opposite

          Party No. 2 initially lodged an FIR bearing Sikandara P.S. Case

          No. 11 of 2008, alleging that while he was returning home, the

          petitioner along with co-accused Sudhir Ram intercepted him on

          the way, pointed a pistol at him, abused him, and thereafter

          assaulted him with the butt of the said pistol. It was further

          alleged that upon hearing his cries, the co-villagers arrived at

          the spot, overpowered the accused persons, and snatched the

          weapon from their possession. Although, after investigation, the

          police submitted a final form in respect of the allegations

          levelled in the FIR, however, the learned Magistrate, after

          treating the protest petition as a complaint and examining the

          complainant as well as the enquiry witnesses, took cognizance

          of the alleged offences. The averments made in the complaint

          and the statements of the enquiry witnesses are sufficient to

          show the commission of the alleged offences and prima facie
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14493 of 2016(3) dt.27-01-2026
                                                       4/4




                     involvement of the petitioners in the said occurrence. The

                     petitioner has failed to persuade this Court to form the opinion

                     that the allegations levelled by Opposite Party No. 2 are

                     completely baseless or absurd. Moreover, the case against the

                     petitioner is presently at the stage of evidence. Considering all

                     these facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit

                     in the present petition, and accordingly, the same stands

                     dismissed.



                                               (Shailendra Singh, J)

maynaz/-

U     T