Patna High Court
Anju DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed, refusing to quash the FIR.
Summary
The petitioners, Anju Devi, Banti Kumar and Triveni Singh, filed a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 386/2024 registered on 23.11.2024 for alleged assault, attempted shooting, and theft involving their son Raja Kumar. They argued that the FIR was lodged six days after the incident and sent to the court after a further ten‑day delay, contending that the case was concocted to damage their reputation. The State opposed the petition and argued that the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2) of the IPC, Section 3(5) of the BNS Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act are serious and the investigation is at a nascent stage. The Court examined the submissions and held that it would not interfere with an ongoing investigation and found the petition devoid of merit. Consequently, the petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and its transmission to the court warrants quashing of the FIR.
- Whether the Court can interfere with an investigation that is at a nascent stage concerning serious offences.
- Whether the allegations constitute cognizable offences under the cited provisions of the IPC and the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- BNS Act — s. 3(5)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- quashing of FIR
- delay in filing FIR
- investigation interference
- IPC offences
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- petition dismissed
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3491 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-386 Year-2024 Thana- ATHMALGOLA District- Patna
======================================================
1. Anju Devi wife of Triveni Singh Resident of village -Ram Nagar Diyara
Athmalgola Police Station -Athamalgola District -Patna
2. Banti Kumar son of Triveni Singh Resident of village -Ram Nagar Diyara
Athmalgola Police Station -Athamalgola District -Patna
3. Triveni Singh Son of Late Pramhansh Singh Resident of village -Ram Nagar
Diyara Athmalgola Police Station -Athamalgola District -Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sudha Wife of Late Raktu Singh @ Ganesh Singh Resident of village -Ram
Nagar Diyara Athmalgola Police Station -Athamalgola District -Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandrasen Prasad Singh, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 24-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the
first information report of Athamalgola Police Station Case No.
386/2024 dated 23.11.2024 registered under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 117(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) BNS and 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, one Sudha has lodged
a complaint, which has subsequently been registered as
Athamalgola Police Station Case No. 386/2024, stating that on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3491 of 2025(2) dt.24-03-2026
2/3
17.11.2024 at 10:00 A.M. her son Raja Kumar had gone to the
house of his cousin sister and when he returned home, his uncle
Triveni Singh (petitioner no. 3) assaulted him on his leg with
iron rod and Bunty Kumar (petitioner no. 2) and his mother
Anju Devi fired from gun, which did not hit and further took 10
gram chain of her son Raja Kumar, upon which Raja Kumar
called 112, whereafter the accused persons fled away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
there is a delay of altogether six days in lodging the FIR and the
FIR was sent to the court after a further delay of 10 days and the
case is a concocted one and the petitioner no. 3 has also filed an
informatory petition on earlier point of time apprehending his
false implication and of others at the hand of the prosecution
party. The primary objective of the Opposite Party No. 2/
informant was to ruin the career of the petitioner no. 2.
5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail.
6. Perused the record and considered the submissions
of the parties, the petitioners have come for quashing of the FIR
registered for the offences punishable under Section 126(2),
115(2), 117(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) BNS and 27 of the
Arms Act, the investigation is at its nascent stage and the case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3491 of 2025(2) dt.24-03-2026
3/3
being serious in nature. As the case is under investigation, this
court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
7. The case is devoid of merits and is accordingly
dismissed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
niku/-
U T
Checking your session…