Patna High Court
RAMMURAT PARJAPATIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court dismissed the application, holding that it would not entertain a petition to quash the cognizance order and charges after the trial had progressed to the defence‑evidence stage without an earlier stay.
Summary
The petitioners, Rammurat Parjapati and Nagendra Parjapati, filed an application in the Patna High Court seeking to quash the cognizance order dated 05‑03‑2021 and the framing of charges in a POCSO case. An interim order dated 27‑03‑2025 stayed further proceedings, but the trial court report showed that prosecution evidence had already been closed on 04‑01‑2025, the accused’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 14‑02‑2025, and the case was at the defence‑evidence stage. The petitioners argued that they had a meritorious case and that an interlocutory application challenging the charge framing had been filed in 2023, urging the High Court to hear the matter on merits. The High Court observed that no stay was in place until the interim order of 27‑03‑2025, by which time the trial had progressed significantly, and therefore it would not entertain the application. Consequently, the application for quashing the cognizance order and charges was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can entertain an application to quash a cognizance order and framed charges when the trial court has already proceeded to the defence‑evidence stage without a prior stay of proceedings.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- quash cognizance
- stay of proceedings
- POCSO Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- defence evidence stage
- interlocutory application
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66623 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. RAMMURAT PARJAPATI S/o Rambachan Prajapati @ Kuti Parjapati
Resident of Village- Gangapur (Sonab), P.S.- Durgawati, District- Kaimur at
Bhabhua.
2. Nagendra Parjapati @ Narendra Prasad Son of Late Ramchandra Parjapati
@ Ramchandra Prasad Resident of Village- Gangapur (Sonab), P.S.-
Durgawati, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nisha Kumari D/o Abhimanu Bind Resident of Village- Gangapur (Sonab),
P.S.- Durgawati, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP
For the Respondent O.P. No.2: Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 05-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
of the cognizance order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge
POCSO Act, Kaimur at Bhabhua. Thereafter, an interlocutory
application, bearing I.A. No.1 of 2023, was also filed making a
prayer for quashing of the charges which was framed against the
petitioners.
3. The records of this case would depict that by an
interim order dated 27.03.2025, notices were issued to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66623 of 2021(5) dt.05-01-2026
2/3
opposite party no.2 and further proceedings in the learned Court
below in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.94 of 2020 were
directed to remain stayed.
4. It is informed by learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 that witnesses have already been examined on behalf
of the prosecution and by an earlier order dated 08.12.2025, a
report had been called for from the learned Court below. In
pursuance of the order dated 08.12.2025, a report dated
12.12.2025 has been received and a perusal of which would
show that the prosecution evidence has already been closed on
04.01.2025. It further appears from the said report that on
14.02.2025, the statement of the accused was even recorded
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the case was fixed for the
defence evidence. It is after such stage that the interim order
dated 27.03.2025 was passed.
5. Although, learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the petitioners have a good case on merit and an
interlocutory application challenging the framing of the charges
was already filed in the year 2023, hence the present application
should be heard on merits.
6. Taking into consideration the fact that there was no
stay of proceeding till 27.03.2025 and by that time the stage of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66623 of 2021(5) dt.05-01-2026
3/3
the case had progressed to the stage of defence evidence, which
is evident from the report received from the learned Trial Court,
in such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain
the present application. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Trivedi/-
U T
Checking your session…