Patna High Court

YADU PRASAD SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided: 13 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SOURENDRA PANDEY

Holding

The application to quash the order taking cognizance was dismissed as premature, with the petitioners directed to raise their objections at the charge‑framing stage.

Summary

The petitioners, four accused persons, challenged an order dated 21 June 2018 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate‑VI, Danapur, which had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 332, 353 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with PS‑Maner Case No. 314 of 2015. They filed an application invoking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash that order, contending that the FIR did not prima facie disclose assault or the offences under Sections 353 and 504, and that incidents at six different locations had been improperly clubbed together. The learned High Court examined the submissions and held that the petition was premature, as the proper stage to raise such objections was at the framing of charge. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to raise all points during charge framing. The application was therefore disposed of without any order quashing the magistrate’s cognizance.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate stage for a petitioner to challenge the taking of cognizance by a magistrate under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court?

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 143, 147, 149, 332, 353, 504

Subjects

quash order
inherent jurisdiction
cognizance
criminal procedure
IPC sections
premature application
charge framing

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3413 of 2024
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-314 Year-2015 Thana- MANER District- Patna
                 ======================================================
           1.     Yadu Prasad Singh, S/O Ram Pukar Singh, R/O Village- Nilkanth Tola
                  Goriya Asthan, P.S- Maner, Distt.- Patna.
           2.    Ram Narayan Rai, S/O Lae Ram Pravesh Rai, R/O Village- Nilkanth Tola
                 Goriya Asthan, P.S- Maner, Distt.- Patna.
           3.    Bir Bahadur Rai, S/O Late Ram Anuj Rai, R/O Village- Nilkanth Tola
                 Goriya Asthan, P.S- Maner, Distt.- Patna.
           4.    Brij Nandan Kumar, S/O Harihar Rai, R/O Village- Nagwan Sadikpur
                 Bagicha, P.S- Maner, Distt.- Patna.


                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s


                                                        Versus

                 The State Of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Manoranjan Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Ms Pushpa Sinha, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
                                                   ORAL ORDER


2   13-01-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                  2. The present application has been filed by the

                   petitioners invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

                   Court for quashing the order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the

                   learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Danapur in

                   connection with Maner P.S. Case No. 314 of 2015 by which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3413 of 2024(2) dt.13-01-2026
                                            2/3




          cognizance for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 149, 332,

          353, 504 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the

          petitioners.

                       3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          from mere perusal of the FIR it would be evident that a few

          sections in which cognizance has been taken is not prima facie

          being made out. It has further been submitted that there is no

          allegation of any assault upon the informant or any other person

          still the learned Magistrarial Court has gone on to take

          cognizance under Sections 353 and 504 of the IPC. It has next

          been submitted that almost six places of occurrence have been

          clubbed into one and no prima facie case is being made out.

                       4. From perusal of the impugned order, it seems that

          the learned Trial Court has proceeded ahead on the basis of

          charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner and others on

          account of the occurrence which have taken place at six

          different places when there was road blockage.

                       5. In my consideration, the application at this stage

          seems to be premature and the petitioner has challenged the

          order taking cognizance. However, in view of such submissions,

          a liberty is being given to the petitioner to raise all such points

          at the time of framing of charge.
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3413 of 2024(2) dt.13-01-2026
                                                          3/3




                                     6. The application is disposed off with the aforesaid

                        observation.



                                                 (Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…