Patna High Court
RAM SUNDAR SAHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The order dated 30‑01‑2023 rejecting the discharge petition is quashed with respect to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners filed an application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the order dated 30‑01‑2023 that rejected their discharge petition in a POCSO case. They were alleged to have entered the informant's house armed on 09‑12‑2020, assaulting several persons and snatching articles, while the co‑accused Pritam Kumar was accused of attempting to rape a 14‑year‑old girl. The petitioners contended that the incident stemmed from a love affair involving the son of petitioner No.1 and the minor, and that they were not present at the time of the alleged assault, with no injury report to substantiate the charges. The trial court had taken cognizance of offences under various IPC sections and Section 8 of the POCSO Act against the petitioners. The High Court held that the evidence did not support the inclusion of the petitioners and therefore quashed the order of the lower court insofar as they were concerned. Consequently, the petition for quash of the order was allowed.
Issues considered
- What is the propriety of rejecting the discharge petition under Section 227 CrPC against the petitioners in the POCSO case?
- Whether the petitioners can be held liable for the offences alleged under the IPC and the POCSO Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 354(b), 452, 504, 506, 509
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 8
Subjects
- POCSO
- Section 227 CrPC
- discharge petition
- assault
- sexual offences
- quash order
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17991 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-251 Year-2020 Thana- BIHRA District- Saharsa
======================================================
1. RAM SUNDAR SAH Son of Late Baso Sah @ Basudeo Sah Resident of
Village - Dorma, P.S.- Bihra, District - Saharsa.
2. Ramesh @ Ramdev Sah @ Ram Sah Son of Late Vasu Sah @ Basudeo Sah
Resident of Village - Dorma, P.S.- Bihra, District - Saharsa.
3. Gautam Kumar Sah @ Gautam Kumar Son of Ram Sundar Sah Resident of
Village - Dorma, P.S.- Bihra, District - Saharsa.
4. Devendra Sah @ Devanand Kumar @ Devanand Sah Son of Ramesh Sah @
Ramdev Sah @ Ram Sah Resident of Village - Dorma, P.S.- Bihra, District -
Saharsa.
5. Raju Kumar Sah Son of Heeramani Sah Resident of Village - Dorma, P.S.-
Bihra, District - Saharsa.
6. Shyam Sah Son of Laldeo Sah Resident of Village - Dorma, P.S.- Bihra,
District - Saharsa.
7. Shushil Yadav @ Shushil Kumar Son of Rajendra Yadav Resident of Village
- Dumma, P.S.- Bihra, District - Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mala Devi Wife of Ahok Chaudhary Resident of Village - Dorma, Telyari
Ward No.- 5, P.S.- Bihra, District - Saharsa.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Javed Aslam
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
3 30-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
of the order dated 30-01-2023 passed by learned ADJ-VI-cum-
Spl. Judge (POCSO), Saharsa in POCSO Case No. 55 of 2020
arising out of Bihra P.S. Case No. 251 of 2020 whereby and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17991 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
2/3
whereunder, the discharge petition under Section-227 of the
Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
3. As per allegation, on 09-12-2020 at night, the co-
accused Pritam Kumar, son of the petitioner No. 1 entered the
informant's house and attempted to commit rape upon her 14
years minor daughter. The co-accused Pritam Kumar was caught
and the Officer-in-charge was called but in the meantime, the
petitioners entered the house of the informant variously armed
and they assaulted Manoj Chaudhary, Vikash Kumar, Baby Devi
and others and also, snatched the articles from the house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this
is a matter of love affairs between the son of petitioner No. 1
and the girl, in question and the petitioners have no connection
at all, in the alleged occurrence.
5. Love affairs with minor may not be a permissible
defence but that case is specifically against co-accused Pritam
Kumar which may only be thrashed out at the time of trial. The
allegation against the petitioners is of assaulting two persons
namely Vikash Kumar, Baby Devi and some unknown persons.
During investigation, no injury report at all was brought on
record to substantiate the allegation.
6. Cognizance has been taken for the offence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17991 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
3/3
punishable under Sections-341, 323, 504, 506, 354(B), 452 and
509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section-8 of POCSO Act. The
said offences may not be made out against these persons
(petitioners) who were not present at the time of occurrence but
they have only been roped in the present case at the fag end of
the FIR to implicate all the family members.
7. In such view of the matter, the order dated 30-01-
2023 passed in POCSO Case No. 55 of 2020 arising out of
Bihra P.S. Case No. 251 of 2020 by learned ADJ-VI-cum-Spl.
Judge (POCSO), Saharsa is quashed in respect of the petitioners
only.
8. Accordingly, this application stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
A.K.V.//-
U T
Checking your session…