Patna High Court

SUNIL KUMAR PASWANversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 27 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SANDEEP KUMAR

Holding

The order dated 20‑08‑2019 taking cognizance against only two accused is not interfered with and the application is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Paswan, filed an application challenging a High Court order dated 20‑08‑2019 that took cognizance of the offence only against two of the nine accused persons. The petitioner sought to have cognizance taken against the remaining accused (OP Nos. 2‑9). The learned counsel for the accused argued that charges had already been framed against the two accused and that the order should not be interfered with. Justice Sandeep Kumar held that the order was not liable to be set aside at this stage and dismissed the application. He directed that, should fresh evidence arise during trial, the informant may file an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. or Section 358 of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, which the magistrate will consider in accordance with law.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court order taking cognizance of the offence against only two accused can be interfered with.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for cognizance against the remaining accused at this stage.

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 358
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 319

Subjects

cognizance
Criminal Procedure Code
Section 319
Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act
High Court order
application dismissal

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82381 of 2019
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Jamui
                 ======================================================
                 SUNIL KUMAR PASWAN Son of Late Rameshwar Paswan Resident of
                 Village- Pratappur, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui.

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Dipak Singh Son of Dukha Singh Resident of Village- Pratappur, P.S.-
                 Jamui, District- Jamui.
           3.    Narmdeshwar Singh Son of Late Nandan Prasad Singh Resident of Village-
                 Pratappur, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui.
           4.    Karmvir Singh @ Guddan Singh Son of Late Madanjeet Singh Resident of
                 Village- Pratappur, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui.
           5.    Amit Kumar Singh @ Bullu Singh son of Late Krishna Prasad Singh @
                 Laddoo Singh Resident of Village- Pratappur, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui.
           6.    Prabhakar Singh Son of Bhuvaneshwari Singh Resident of Village-
                 Pratappur, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui.
           7.    Shashi Shekhar Kumar @ Bipin Kumar Singh Son of Bhuvneshwari Prasad
                 Singh Resident of Village- Pratappur, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui.
           8.    Manoj Kumar Singh Son of Narmdeshwar Singh Resident of Village-
                 Pratappur, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui.
           9.    Randhir Singh @ Fuchan Singh Son of Late Madanjeet Singh Resident of
                 Village- Pratappur, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Archit Rajpal, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Ms.Usha Kumari 1, APP
                 For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 9 :        Mr.Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   27-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 to 9.

                                2. The present application has been filed for

                   challenging the order dated 20.08.2019 by which cognizance

                   has been taken only against two accused persons and no
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82381 of 2019(3) dt.27-01-2026
                                                          2/2




                        cognizance has been taken against the rest of the accused

                        persons i.e. O.P. Nos. 2 to 9.

                                     3. At the very outset, learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2

                        to 9 submits that in this case charges have been framed against

                        two accused persons against whom cognizance was taken.

                                     4. In these circumstances, I am of the view, the order

                        dated 20.08.2019 should not be interfered with at this stage.

                                     5. Hence, this application stands disposed of with

                        liberty to informant to file an application under Section 319

                        Cr.P.C./ 358 B.N.S.S., if evidence comes during trial against the

                        O.P. Nos. 2 to 9.

                                     6. If such an application is filed, the same shall be

                        considered and disposed of by the concerned Magistrate in

                        accordance with law and he shall not be influenced by the fact

                        that this Court has observed for filing of an application under

                        Section 319 Cr.P.C.



                                                   (Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…