Patna High Court
VEENA DEVIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The charge‑framing order is quashed with respect to petitioners 1 and 2 due to the absence of specific allegations and the fact that they are women.
Summary
The petitioners Veena Devi and Pammi Kumari, both women, were charged under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly assaulting an informant. They filed an application seeking quash of the charge‑framing order dated 23‑09‑2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas. While petitioners 3 and 4 withdrew their application, the court examined the allegations against petitioners 1 and 2 and held that the complaint was a vague, omnibus allegation with no specific overt act identified. Considering the gender of the accused and the lack of particularised charges, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the charge‑framing order with respect to petitioners 1 and 2. The proceedings against the remaining co‑accused, including petitioners 3 and 4, were ordered to continue.
Issues considered
- What is the propriety of framing charges under Sections 325 and 307 of the IPC when the allegation against the accused women is vague and lacks specific overt acts?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 325, 34, 341, 504, 506
Subjects
- quash of charge sheet
- Indian Penal Code
- women accused
- general allegation
- criminal procedure
- Section 325 IPC
- Section 307 IPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78942 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-382 Year-2018 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Veena Devi Wife Of Bashisth Prasad Resident Of Village - Babhni, Police
Station - Kargahar, District - Rohtas.
2. Pammi Kumari @ Asha Kumari @ Chhaya Kumari Daughter Of Bashisth
Prasad Resident Of Village - Babhni, Police Station - Kargahar, District -
Rohtas.
3. Bashisth Prasad Son Of Late Triveni Prasad Resident Of Village - Babhni,
Police Station - Kargahar, District - Rohtas.
4. Nishant Prasad @ Nishant Kumar Son Of Bashisth Prasad Resident Of
Village - Babhni, Police Station - Kargahar, District - Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Shivji Prasad Son of Late Prahlad Prasad Resident of Village - Bhabgbu,
Police Station - Kargahar, District - Rohtas.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Pooja Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rajni Kant Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Tiwari Shwetketu, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 27-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of
order dated 23.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-XV, Rohtas, Sasaram, in Kargahar Police Station Case
No. 382 of 2018 in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 2019 whereby
charges have been framed for offences under Sections 341, 323,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78942 of 2019(4) dt.27-01-2026
2/3
325, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been
taken against petitioners.
3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners prays for and is permitted to withdraw the
application filed on behalf of petitioner nos. 3 and 4 to raise all
the grounds at an appropriate stage.
4. Accordingly, this application filed on behalf of the
petitioner nos. 3 and 4 is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. The present application is now restricted to
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 only.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so
far as petitioners no. 1 and 2 are concerned, they are women and
the allegation levelled against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 is that
they have assaulted the informant by leg and fist which shows
that there are no specific allegations of overt acts against them
but the Court below took cognizance under Sections 325 and
307 of the IPC.
7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2.
8. I have heard and considered the submissions of the
parties and have gone through the records of the case.
9. Considering the fact that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78942 of 2019(4) dt.27-01-2026
3/3
are women and there is general and omnibus allegation against
them, the present application stands allowed with regard to
them.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
23.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XV,
Rohtas, Sasaram, in Kargahar Police Station Case No. 382 of
2018 in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 2019 is hereby quashed with
respect to petitioner nos. 1 and 2.
11. The proceedings with regard to other co-accused
persons shall continue including the petitioner nos. 3 and 4.
12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram for its
compliance through FAX or e-mail forthwith.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…