Patna High Court
Bibi Sakina @ Sakina and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that once the trial has commenced and the case has progressed, the petition cannot be amended to include a prayer for quashing the charge‑sheet, and the application was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners filed an interlocutory application seeking to add a prayer to their main writ petition for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 15.11.2014, the pending proceedings, and the charge‑sheet No. 83 of 2014. They argued that the trial had already commenced and a witness examined, necessitating the amendment. The court examined whether a petition can be altered at such an advanced stage of the criminal proceeding. It held that the stage of the case had changed from challenging the cognizance order to challenging the charge‑sheet, and the petitioners were now facing trial. Consequently, the court found no ground to permit the additional prayer and dismissed the interlocutory application.
Issues considered
- Whether an interlocutory application to add a prayer for quashing a charge‑sheet can be entertained after the trial has commenced
Subjects
- interlocutory application
- addition of prayer
- quashing order
- charge sheet
- trial stage
- procedural law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38011 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-442 Year-2013 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria
======================================================
1. Bibi Sakina @ Sakina w/o Mansoor
2. Md. Ejaz @ Ejaz S/o Kalim
3. Md. Imran @ Ibran S/o Kalim
4. Prawez @ Prawez S/o Kalim
5. Azmer S/o Kalim All, resident of village- Madarganj, P.S.- Simraha,
District- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Md. Nashim S/o Late Bashir R/o Madarganj, PS-Simraha, District-Araria
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
9 12-01-2026 I.A. No. 1 of 2025.
This interlocutory application has been filed in this
case for addition of prayer in the prayer portion of the main
quashing.
2. For the reason mentioned in the interlocutory
application, the same is allowed and the prayer made in
paragraph 1 of the interlocutory application shall also be treated
to be part of the main writ application.
Re:- Cr. Misc. No. 38011 of 2015.
3. Heard the parties.
4. By way of this application, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:-
a. This application has been filed for
quashing the order taking cognizance dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38011 of 2015(9) dt.12-01-2026
2/2
15.11.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Araria in connection with Forbisganj
(Simraha) P.S. Case No. 442 of 2013 /
corresponding to G.R. No. 2649 of 2013.
b. For quashing the whole proceedings
in connection with Forbesganj (Simraha) P.S. Case
No. 442 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. which is
pending before the learned ACJM-1, Araria.
c. For quashing the charge-sheet No. 83
of 2014 dated 25.07.2014.
5. The additional prayer made by way of filing an
interlocutory application in this case is because the trial has
commenced and one witnesses has already been examined, as
per the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 02.
6. In the opinion of this Court, the stage of the case
has now changed as initially the petitioner has challenged the
order taking cognizance and now he is challenging the charge-
sheet.
7. Since, the stage of the case has changed and the
petitioners are facing trial, this Court finds no ground to allow
the prayer of the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U
Checking your session…