Patna High Court
Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal and AnrversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The petition lacks merit and the order taking cognizance of the offences cannot be quashed; the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, brothers Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal and Rajeev Kumar Jaiswal, filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the order of the ACJM that took cognizance of offences under IPC Sections 341, 323, 504 and the SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(x) arising from a protest‑cum‑complaint filed by Bhagirath Paswan in a long‑standing land dispute. The petitioners argued that the FIR was lodged after a seven‑day delay, the police investigation found the allegations false, no medical evidence was produced, and the alleged assault did not occur in a public place. The State contended that there was prima facie material, including statements of five enquiry witnesses and that the alleged incident took place in a public tea shop. The High Court examined the material, noted that the witnesses’ statements gave the allegations a semblance of truth and that a civil dispute could provide a motive, and held that the petitioners had not shown the allegations to be frivolous or baseless. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the lower court’s order taking cognizance.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the ACJM taking cognizance of offences under IPC and the SC/ST Act can be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC.
- Whether the allegations made in the protest‑cum‑complaint are frivolous, baseless, or lack sufficient evidence to warrant dismissal.
- Whether the absence of medical evidence and the claim that the alleged assault did not occur in a public place affect the validity of the cognizance.
- Whether the presence of prima facie evidence and witness statements justifies continuation of criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(x)
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash petition
- cognizance of offences
- land dispute
- SC/ST Act
- prima facie evidence
- criminal procedure
- evidence stage
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43703 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1194 Year-2015 Thana- KHAGARIA COMPALINT CASE
District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal
2. Rajeev Kumar Jaiswal, Both sons of Late Yogendra Prasad Chaudhary, both
Resident of Village and P.O.- Shumbha Gaji Ghat, P.S.- Allouli, District-
Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bhagirath Paswan S/o Nago Paswan both Resident of Village and P.O.-
Shumbha Gaji Ghat, P.S.- Allouli, District- Khagaria.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 27-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed by the
petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of the
order dated 23.01.2016 passed by the Court of the A.C.J.M.-I,
Khagaria, in Trial No. 1171 of 2015 arising out of Protest-cum-
Complaint Case No. 1194C of 2015 (Khagaria S.C. & S.T. P.S.
Case No. 16 of 2015), whereby cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), and under Section 3(1)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43703 of 2016(5) dt.27-01-2026
2/4
(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’) has
been taken and the petitioners have been summoned to face trial
for the said offences.
3. Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, submits that there is a
longstanding land dispute between the petitioners and O.P. No. 2
and, in this regard, sufficient documents such as Annexures 6 to
10 have been filed before this Court in this miscellaneous
petition. O.P. No. 2 initially lodged an FIR after an inordinate
delay of seven days, which was investigated by the police. After
the investigation, the police found the allegations made by O.P.
No. 2 in his FIR to be false and, consequently, the petitioners
were not sent up by the police. Upon submission of the final
report, the learned trial court accepted the same and, prior
thereto, notice was directed to be issued to the informant/O.P.
No. 2. Thereafter, the final report submitted by the police was
accepted by the learned trial court, and an enquiry was
conducted by the trial court upon filing of the protest petition by
O.P. No. 2; however, that order was not proper and legal. It is
further submitted that the complainant/O.P. No. 2 failed to
produce any medical evidence to support the allegation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43703 of 2016(5) dt.27-01-2026
3/4
physical assault, and the alleged place where the occurrence of
assault is stated to have taken place was not a public place.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned
Special P.P. appearing for the State, submits that there is
sufficient material for proceeding with the alleged offences of
which cognizance has been taken, and there is sufficient prima
facie material to show the petitioners’ role in the commission of
the alleged offences. In this regard, the statements of five
enquiry witnesses examined on the protest petition before the
concerned Magistrate are relevant. Further, the prosecution story
narrated by O.P. No. 2 in his protest petition itself shows the
commission of the alleged occurrence at a public place, which
was a tea shop.
5. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order
as well as the relevant materials. The allegations levelled by
O.P. No. 2 in his protest petition prima facie show the
commission of the alleged offences of which cognizance has
been taken. Though the police found the allegations to be false,
the learned Magistrate proceeded on the protest petition filed by
O.P. No. 2, and during the course of enquiry, five witnesses,
among whom some did not belong to the Scheduled Castes,
supported the allegations. Though there is a land dispute
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43703 of 2016(5) dt.27-01-2026
4/4
between the parties, merely for this reason the allegations
levelled by O.P. No. 2 cannot be termed to be completely
baseless, particularly in view of the statements of the five
enquiry witnesses. The petitioners have not been able to
demonstrate that the allegations levelled by O.P. No. 2 in his
protest petition are frivolous and baseless. Further, in light of the
civil dispute pending between the parties, a motive on the part
of the petitioners may be presumed to commit the alleged
occurrence. Furthermore, at present, the case of the petitioners is
at the stage of evidence, as per the office note. Considering all
these facts, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the
impugned order, and there being no merit in this petition, the
same stands dismissed.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/-
U T
Checking your session…