Patna High Court
SURYADEO BHAGAT @ SURYADEO PRASADversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The revisional order directing the magistrate to take cognizance was impermissible and is therefore quashed.
Summary
The petitioners filed a petition in the Patna High Court seeking quash of an order dated 20 May 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas, which had set aside a magistrate’s dismissal of complaint case 937/2017. The magistrate had dismissed the complaint on the basis of a police report indicating that no occurrence had taken place. The revisional order directed the magistrate to take cognizance under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging a prima facie case. The High Court held that the magistrate was within his power to dismiss the complaint given the material, and that the revisional order directing cognizance was not permissible. Consequently, the High Court quashed the revisional order and allowed the petition. The decision underscores that a revisional court cannot compel a magistrate to take cognizance where the police report shows no offence.
Issues considered
- Whether the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the magistrate’s dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. when no prima facie case existed
- Whether a revisional court can direct a magistrate to take cognizance despite a police report indicating no occurrence
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 203
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 203
- cognizance
- complaint dismissal
- quash order
- revision
- magistrate
- prima facie case
- police report
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52674 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-937 Year-2017 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
Rohtas
======================================================
1. SURYADEO BHAGAT @ SURYADEO PRASAD Son of Late Sarayun
Bhagat @ Sarju Bhagat Resident of Village - Jagdeo Nagar, In front of
Clinic of Dr. B.P.Singh, Sasaram, P.O. and P.S.- Sasaram (T), Dist.- Rohtas
(Bihar)
2. Rita Devi Wife of Tej Narayan Bhagat @ Bhagat Tej Narayan Prasad
Resident of Village - Jagdeo Nagar, In front of Clinic of Dr. B.P.Singh,
Sasaram, P.O. and P.S.- Sasaram (T), Dist.- Rohtas (Bihar)
3. Tej Narayan Bhagat @ Bhagat Tej Narayan Prasad Son of Suryadeo Bhagat
@ Suryadeo Prasad Resident of Village - Jagdeo Nagar, In front of Clinic of
Dr. B.P.Singh, Sasaram, P.O. and P.S.- Sasaram (T), Dist.- Rohtas (Bihar)
4. Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Kumar Gautam Son of Tej Narayan Bhagat @ Bhagat
Tej Narayan Prasad Resident of Village - Jagdeo Nagar, In front of Clinic of
Dr. B.P.Singh, Sasaram, P.O. and P.S.- Sasaram (T), Dist.- Rohtas (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. Bharat Singh Son of Late Bhangi Singh Resident of Village - Senahi, P.S.-
Tilauthu, Dist.- Rohtas at Present resident of Mohalla- Nuranganj (Jagdev
Nagar), P.S.- Sasaram (T), Dist.- Rohtas.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pranav Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
2. Despite valid service of notice, O.P. No. 2 has not
appeared.
3. This application has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners for setting aside/quashing the order dated 20.05.2019
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52674 of 2019(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/2
passed in Cr. Revision No. 65/2019 passed by Learned
Additional Sessions Judge 13th, Rohtas at Sasaram whereby and
whereunder the order dated 08.01.2019 passed by learned
Magistrate in Compliant Case No. 937/2017 has been set aside
as under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. stating that if prima facie
case is made out then cognizance should have been taken in the
matter and the matter has been remanded back.
4. A report was called for by the Magistrate from the
police and in the report it has come that no occurrence has taken
place.
5. The Magistrate was well within his power to
dismiss the complaint on the basis of materials available on
record, including the report of the police and in my view by the
revisional order the Magistrate has been directed to take
cognizance which is not permissible.
6. In these circumstances, the order dated 20.05.2019
in Compliant Case No. 937/2017 passed by Learned Additional
Sessions Judge 13th, Rohtas at Sasaram, is hereby quashed and
set aside.
7. This application stands allowed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…