Patna High Court
Prince Kumar Rai @ Prince YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to quash the cognizance order as the Special Court had correctly found a prima facie case against the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, three brothers, filed a petition seeking to quash the order dated 21.03.2024 in which a Special Court took cognizance against them under Section 376DA of the IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the brothers abducted and assaulted a 14‑year‑old girl, with the victim’s statement under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC naming other accused but not the petitioners, and a medical examination finding no evidence of sexual assault. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, that the final report exonerated them, and that no prima facie case existed. The Special Court, however, examined the FIR, final report, diary, victim’s statements, medical report, and other material and concluded that a prima facie case existed, thereby taking cognizance. The High Court held that the Special Court’s finding was not amenable to interference and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- The High Court’s power to quash a cognizance order when the Special Court has found a prima facie case.
- Whether the evidence on record, including the victim’s statements and medical report, suffices to sustain cognizance under Section 376DA IPC, Section 27 Arms Act and Section 6 POCSO.
- Whether the final report exonerating the petitioners can override the Special Court’s assessment.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376DA
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 6
Subjects
- POCSO
- rape
- cognizance
- quash order
- special judge
- prima facie case
- criminal procedure
- Section 376DA
- Arms Act
- Section 6 POCSO
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 39755 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Prince Kumar Rai @ Prince Yadav Son of Anish Rai Resident of Village-
Dumaria, P.S- Gidha, District- Bhojpur at Ara
2. Chandan Kumar Rai @ Chandan Yadav Son of sarvanand Ray Resident of
Village-Dumaria, P.S- Gidha, District- Bhojpur at Ara
3. Rohit Kumar Rai @ Rohit Yadav Son of Hari Mohan Yadav Resident of
Village-Dumaria, P.S- Gidha, District- Bhojpur at Ara
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Patna
2. Upendra Kumar Singh Son Late Baccha Singh Resident of Village-
Mokampur, P.S- Gidha O.P,(Gidha) , District- Bhojpur at Ara
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Shaishav Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State: Mrs. Anita Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
CAV ORDER
3 08-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the
impugned order dated 21.03.2024, passed in POCSO P.S. Case
No. 38 of 2024, arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 07 of 2024,
by the learned Additional District and Session Judge-VI-cum-
Special Judge. POCSO, Ara, by which the learned Special Court
was pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners for the
offences punishable under Section 376 DA of the Indian Penal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 39755 of 2024(3) dt.08-05-2026
2/5
Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
3. The prosecution case, as per the written report of
the informant, is to the effect that, on 01.02.2024, the informant
had gone to attend a marriage ceremony in the village along
with his elder son. At about 21:08 hours, the wife of the
informant called the informant and told him to come to the
house as some boys had kidnapped their daughter (‘the victim’)
on the point of pistol. It has further been alleged that when the
informant reached his house along with his elder son and
enquired into matter, his younger son, aged about ten years, told
the informant that he and his sister, the victim, aged about 14
years, were studying in the front room of the house, then
accused Dheeraj Yadav, Chandan Yadav, son of Sarvanand Rai,
Vishal Yadav, Chandan Yadav son of Madan Rai, Prince Yadav
and Rohit came there. They started abusing the informant and
also told that they belong to a particular political party and all
the aforesaid accused persons took her sister, the victim. It has
further been alleged that search was made and during the course
of search, the informant found the victim in an injured condition
two kilometers away in an orchard and her clothes were not in
order. It has further been alleged that upon information to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 39755 of 2024(3) dt.08-05-2026
3/5
police, the victim was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It
has further been submitted that after investigation, the allegation
with respect to the petitioners were not found true and they were
not sent up for trial, but the learned Magistrate, differing with
the final form, took cognizance against the petitioners and
others by the impugned order. It has also been submitted that the
victim girl, in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164
CrPC, had not named the petitioners and has only named co-
accused Vishal and Dheeraj and has stated that Dheeraj had
raped her. It has further been submitted that in the medical
examination of the victim girl, no evidence of rape or sexual
assault was found on her body. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has also submitted that in the facts and circumstances
no prima facie case is made out against them.
5. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer of the petitioners.
6. It is pertinent to mention that the learned Special
Court while passing the impugned order taking cognizance has
considered the entire materials as collected during the
investigation and took cognizance against the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 39755 of 2024(3) dt.08-05-2026
4/5
differing with the final form. Learned Special Court has
considered the statement of victim recorded under Section 161
and 164 CrPC, apart from the statement of other witnesses, who
have fully supported the case against the petitioners. The
learned Special Court has considered the entire materials against
the petitioners including FIR, final form, diary, statement of the
victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, medical evidence,
FSL report and the date of birth. The learned Special Court,
having considered the materials collected during the
investigation, has not accepted the final form submitted in
favour of the petitioners and differing with the final form, took
cognizance against the petitioners.
7. Heard the parties and perused the record.
8. In view of the aforementioned facts and
circumstances, the fact that the case being under Section 376
DA of the IPC, Section 27 Arms Act and Section 6 of the
POCSO Act, the seriousness of the allegation against the
petitioners and the finding of learned Special Court, which has
found the prima facie case against the petitioners, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the impugned order taking
cognizance.
9. The application is devoid of merit and is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 39755 of 2024(3) dt.08-05-2026
5/5
accordingly dismissed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Pawan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 01.05.2026
Uploading Date 08.05.2026.
Transmission Date 08.05.2026.
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.