Patna High Court
TABASSUM @ TABASSUM PARWEENversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The High Court held that it will not interfere with the magistrate’s order of taking cognizance and dismissed the petition for quashing.
Summary
The petitioners sought to quash an order dated 25-02-2019 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bihar Sharif, which had taken cognizance of offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 504, 337 and 379 arising from a land‑dispute incident on 10‑11 February 2018. The magistrate, after reviewing the material, found a prima facie case and proceeded to take cognizance. The petitioners argued that they should be allowed to present their defence at the stage of cognizance, which the court held to be impermissible. The Patna High Court, after hearing counsel, declined to interfere with the magistrate’s order, emphasizing that defence can be raised only at the charge‑framing stage or thereafter. Consequently, the application for quashing was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioners to raise all grounds at the appropriate later stage.
Issues considered
- Whether a petition for quashing a magistrate's order taking cognizance can be entertained at the cognizance stage.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with a magistrate's decision to take cognizance of offences.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 337, 341, 379, 504
Subjects
- quash order
- cognizance
- defence at cognizance stage
- Indian Penal Code
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17232 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-271 Year-2018 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE
District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Tabassum @ Tabassum Parween Wife Of Geyas Uddin Resident Of
Mohalla-Kaghzi, Biharsharif, P.S.-Bihar, District-Nalanda.
2. Geyas Uddin Son Of Abbas Ali Resident Of Mohalla-Kaghzi, Biharsharif,
P.S.-Bihar, District-Nalanda.
3. Tapush Son Of Geyas Uddin Resident Of Mohalla-Kaghzi, Biharsharif, P.S.-
Bihar, District-Nalanda.
4. Ekbal Khan @ Iqbal Khan Son Of Late Nazru Khan Resident Of Mohalla-
Kaghzi, Biharsharif, P.S.-Bihar, District-Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Nayeb Ali Son Of Late Syed Hassan Ali Resident Of Mohalla-Biharsharif,
P.S.-Bihar, District-Nalanda.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 02-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the
order dated 25-02-19 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class Bihar Sharif, Nalanda in Complaint Case No. 271
C/2018 against the petitioners whereby and where under
cognizance has been taken u/s 341,323,504,337 & 379 of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 10th
February 2018, at 9 AM, the complainant stopped labourers
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17232 of 2021(5) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
from working on his land due to a land dispute, as the
petitioners had filed a case with the SHO, Bihar. The
complainant instructed the workers to stop until the dispute was
resolved. Later that day, the complainant and witnesses went to
Patna for a funeral and returned the same evening. Around 8
PM, the accused persons stopped the complainant near
Mozaffar Palvi's house and began to abuse him. When the
complainant tried to stop them, Ekbal Khan stole Rs. 5,000
from his pocket, Tapush took a golden ring worth Rs. 50,000,
and Geyas Uddin took a golden chain worth Rs. 30,000. The
accused then physically assaulted the complainant and
threatened to kill him if he reported the incident. On 11 th
February 2018, when the complainant again asked the labourers
to stop work, the accused abused him again and threw bricks
and stones from their roof, injuring him.
4. The learned Magistrate, after considering the facts
and evidence on record, has found a prima facie case against the
petitioners and has proceeded to take cognizance. Petitioners
want this Court to consider their defense at the stage of
cognizance which is not permissible in law.
5. In view of the discussions made above, this Court
is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, therefore, this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17232 of 2021(5) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise
all the grounds at the stage of framing of charge/at an
appropriate stage.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.