Patna High Court
Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The application under Section 311 CrPC cannot be allowed as the offences are non‑compoundable; the order of the Special Court stands.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Kumar, filed an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to recall the minor victim for re‑examination in a POCSO case where he was charged with offences under Sections 366(A), 370(A), 372, 120(B)/34 of the IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The underlying facts allege that the victim, a 15‑year‑old girl, was allegedly raped and forced into prostitution. The Special Court had dismissed the petitioner's Section 311 application, and the petitioner moved the Patna High Court to quash that order, arguing that the parties had compromised. The State opposed, contending that the offences are non‑compoundable and that recalling the victim would amount to tampering with evidence. The High Court held that no interference was warranted as the offences are non‑compoundable and the ground for recalling the victim is untenable, and dismissed the petitioner's application.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 311 CrPC to recall a minor victim for re‑examination is maintainable in cases involving non‑compoundable offences under the IPC and POCSO Act.
- Whether a compromise petition can affect the victim's testimony in such serious sexual offence cases.
- Whether the order of the Exclusive Special Court dismissing the Section 311 application can be quashed.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 311
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 34, 366(A), 370(A), 372
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4(2)
Subjects
- POCSO
- non‑compoundable offences
- victim testimony
- Section 311 CrPC
- recall of victim
- sexual assault
- prostitution
- compromise petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60254 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2022 Thana- Mufassil District- Khagaria
======================================================
Sonu Kumar S/o Sunil Prasad Singh Resident of Village- Bhadas, PS-
Khagaria Muffasil, District- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
CAV ORDER
3 08-04-2026 This application has been filed for quashing the
order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special
Court of POCSO, Khagaria, in POCSO Case No. 31A of 2022,
arising out of Khagaria Mufassil P.S. Case No. 226 of 2022,
whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner
under the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the
victim for re-examination has been dismissed.
2. Initially, a complaint case came to be filed, which
was sent to the police station under the provisions of 156(3)
Cr.P.C. for registration as the First Information Report, upon
which Khagaria Mufassil P.S. Case No. 226 of 2022 was
registered under Sections 366(A), 370(A), 372, 120(B)/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4(2) of the Protection of
Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for
short).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60254 of 2025(3) dt.08-04-2026
2/6
3. As per the allegation, the daughter of the informant,
who happens to be the victim, aged 15 years and 9 months, after
completing her matriculation had gone to pursue her
intermediate education and used to stay at the house of one
Sunil Kumar Singh, who happens to be the relative of the
informant. In the year 2021, the said Sunil Kumar Singh and his
wife Vibha Devi took the victim to their house so as to get
facilitate her intermediate education. The victim remained at
their house for six months. After six months, the victim returned
to the house of the informant and she used to be under pressure.
Upon being asked, she used to keep mum. It is further alleged
that Sunil Kumar Singh and Vibha Devi used to call the
informant on telephone that the education of the victim is being
hampered and hence they would be sending their son soon to the
house of the informant and requested him to send the victim to
their house. It is further alleged that on 23.11.2021, Sonu
Kumar, son of Sunil Kumar Singh and Vibha Devi, petitioner
herein, came to the house of the informant and talked to the
victim alone and thereafter the victim left with Sonu Kumar. It
is alleged that Sunil Kumar Singh facilitated the talk with the
victim to the informant, but after 28.11.2021, though the
informant requested to talk to the victim to Sunil Kumar Singh,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60254 of 2025(3) dt.08-04-2026
3/6
Vibha Devi, Sonu Kumar and Gulshan Kumar (another son of
Sunil Kumar Singh and Vibha Devi), but victim was not called
to talk on mobile and evasive reply was given. After 20-25 days,
when the informant went to the house of Sunil Kumar Singh to
meet the victim, he did not find her there. Upon query from all
the aforesaid persons, they stated that the victim had gone to
Kolkata to give examination and would be returning in another
ten days, but even after passage of several days, the aforesaid
persons gave evasive reply on one pretext or the other. The
informant accepted the words of the aforesaid persons as they
happened to be his relatives. There was talk in the village and
amongst the relatives that the victim was subjected to physical
assault (rape) by Sonu Kumar and Gulshan Kumar and video to
this effect was made and she was forced into prostitution in
order to earn money. When the aforesaid persons got the
apprehension that their misdeeds would be known to all, they
sold the victim in Kolkata for prostitution.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that Section 311 Cr.P.C. application was filed, which is annexed
as Annexure-7, which reads as follows: -
“U;k;ky;]
Jheku~ vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh”k&’k’Ve
&lg&fo”ks’k U;k;k/kh”k&iksLdks vf/k0
[kxfM+;kA
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60254 of 2025(3) dt.08-04-2026
4/6
iksLdks okn la0&31, 0@2022
[kxfM+;k eqQfly Fkkuk dkaM la0&226@2022
jkT;
cuke~
lksuq dqekj -----------------------------------------------------------------------vfHk;qDr
vkosnu feu tkfuc vfHk;qDr dh vksj
ls na0iz0la0 dh /kkjk &311 ds vUrxZr
lkf{k;ksa dk iqu% ijh{k.k gsrq &
egk”k;]
izkFkZuk gS fd&
1- ;g fd] mijksDr of.kZr okn esa fnukad&09-02-2024 dks
nksuksa i{kdkj lwpd ,oa vfHk;qDr esa le>kSrk lEiUu gks x;k gSA
2- ;g fd] okn ds mHk; i{kksa ds chp lEiUu le>kSrk
vkosnu fnukad&09-02-2024 dks Jheku~ ds U;k;ky; esa lefiZr gSA
3- ;g fd] bl okn ls iwoZ okn esa lwpd ,oa ihfM+rk dk
C;ku ,oa vU; xokgu dk C;ku Jheku ds U;k;ky; esa ntZ fd;k
x;k gS] ijUrq mDr fnukad&09-02-2024 ds le>kSrk vkosnu ds
vkyksd esa iqu% okn ds lwpd ,oa ihfM+rk dk C;ku U;k;ky; esa
ntZ fd;k tkuk U;k;fgr esa vfr vko”;d gSA
vr% Jheku~ ls izkFkZuk gS fd mijksDr
of.kZr okn esa lwpd ,oa ihfM+rk ds
iqu% ijh{k.k ,oa izfrijh{k.k gsrq
vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls nkf[ky na0iz0la0
dh /kkjk&311 vaUrxZr bl fjdkWy
vkosnu dks Lohd`r djrs gq, okn ds
lwpd ,oa ihfM+rk dks iqu% lEeu
fuxZr djus gsrq vkns”k nsus dh d`ik
dh tk; fd vfHk;qDr Jheku~ dk
lnSo vkHkkjh cuk jgsxkA
}kjk izsf’kr%&
g0@&
vf/koDrkA
fnukad&11@03@24”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also
submitted that since the parties have compromised their case,
the victim be recalled and question in this regard be asked from
her. It is further submitted that the compromise petition dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60254 of 2025(3) dt.08-04-2026
5/6
09.02.2024 has been annexed with this application as Annexure-
5.
6. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer of the petitioner has submitted that this
application is nothing but to fill up the lacuna in this case and
the ground on which Section 311 Cr.P.C. application was filed is
not a valid ground. Moreover, compromise petition was filed in
this case, the case being under Sections 366(A), 370(A), 372,
120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4(2) of the
POCSO Act, which are serious in nature, non-compoundable
and it amounts to tampering with the evidence when the victim
has adduced her evidence in the court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records.
8. The case was registered under Sections 366(A),
370(A), 372, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
4(2) of the POCSO Act and cognizance was taken against the
petitioner and the victim has adduced her evidence in the court,
thereafter when her evidence was concluded, then the petition
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on 09.02.2024 although the
offences were not compoundable. Moreover, there are serious
allegations against the petitioner to have committed rape upon
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60254 of 2025(3) dt.08-04-2026
6/6
the victim and also forced her into prostitution. The petition
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is nothing but to recall the victim for
her cross-examination on the point of compromise. The same
cannot be permitted as the very ground is not tenable as the
offence is not compoundable.
9. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, this
Court is of the view that no interference is warranted with the
impugned order.
10. This application is devoid of merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Pawan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 24.03.2026.
Uploading Date 08.04.2026.
Transmission Date 08.04.2026.
Checking your session…