Patna High Court
KAMLI DEVIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The High Court held that the District and Sessions Judge erred by not considering the complete evidential record and therefore the order quashing the CJM's cognizance was set aside.
Summary
Kamli Devi filed a complaint alleging that her husband was brutally assaulted by several accused on 12 March 2017, leading to his death. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Sheohar took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 302, 504 and 34 IPC against all named accused and scheduled their appearance. The District and Sessions Judge later set aside the CJM's order, holding that the charge sheet only named three of the accused and that the final report did not support cognizance against the others. The petitioner challenged this revision, arguing that the judge ignored the informant’s testimony, a key eyewitness statement, and the inquest report. The High Court examined the complete record and concluded that the lower court erred by not considering the full evidential material, and therefore restored the CJM's order. Consequently, the revision application was allowed and the order quashing the CJM’s cognizance was itself quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the District and Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order taking cognizance against all accused.
- Whether the evidence, including the informant’s testimony and the inquest report, warranted cognizance against the accused named in the FIR.
- Whether the revision application for quashing the CJM's order should be allowed.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307, 323, 34, 341, 504
Subjects
- quash order
- cognizance
- revision petition
- IPC sections
- evidence assessment
- magistrate jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83284 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2017 Thana- TARIYANI CHOWK District- Sheohar
======================================================
Kamli Devi W/O Awadhesh Ray R/O Village- Madhopur Chhata, P.S.-
Tariyani, District- Sheohar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Umakant Thakur S/o Chanardeo Thakur R/o village- Madhopur Chhata,
P.S.- Tariyani, District- Sheohar
3. Jay Kant Thakur S/o Chanardeo Thakur R/o village- Madhopur Chhata, P.S.-
Tariyani, District- Sheohar
4. Srikant Thakur S/o Chanardeo Thakur R/o village- Madhopur Chhata, P.S.-
Tariyani, District- Sheohar
5. Chanardeo Thakur S/o Late Ram Bharosh Thakur R/o village- Madhopur
Chhata, P.S.- Tariyani, District- Sheohar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Madhubala Verma, Advocate
Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar
Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 20-01-2026 Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
the learned APP appearing for the State and Mr. Ajay Kumar
Thakur assisted by Mr. Ritwik Thakur, the learned counsel for
the opposite parties.
2. This application has been filed for quashing the
order dated 17.8.2019 passed by the learned District and Session
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83284 of 2019(6) dt.20-01-2026
2/7
Judge, Sheohar in Criminal Revision no. 15/2019 by which the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Sheohar set aside the order
dated 25.2.19 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
Sheohar in Tariyani P.S. Case no. 41/2017 by which the learned
Magistrate took cognizance against all accused persons named
in column 7 of the FIR under Sections 341, 323, 302, 504, and
34 of the Indian Penal code and further fixed the date as
01.04.2019 for their appearance.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.03.2017,
Kamli Devi, wife of Awadhesh Ray, gave a written complaint to
the Officer-in-charge of Tariyani Police Station, alleging that on
12.03.2017, at around 5:30 PM, when her husband was
returning home after working in the fields, in the meantime,
near the house of Ram Chandra Rai, a halla was raised that
some persons were beating Ram Chandra Rai by surrounding
him. On hearing the halla, the informant rushed to the spot and
saw that Umakant Thakur was assaulting her husband with a
rod, while Jay Kant Thakur, Srikant Thakur, Chanardeo Thakur,
Mohan Das, Manjay Das, and Rabida were assaulting him with
bamboo and lathi. It is further alleged that Umakant Thakur
assaulted her husband on the head with a rod, causing him to
lose consciousness and due to which he fell on the ground. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83284 of 2019(6) dt.20-01-2026
3/7
further alleged that on hearing the halla, several villagers came
at the spot and after seeing the villagers, the accused persons
fled away. The villagers took her husband to Sadar Hospital,
Sheohar, where, after receiving primary treatment, he was
referred to Muzaffarpur Hospital and later to Patna.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner, who is the informant of the case, claims herself to
be an eyewitness of the occurrence. On the written information
of the petitioner, a case was lodged as Tariyani P.S. Case no.
41/17 under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal
Code on 13.03.2017 and On 17.03.2017, Section 302 IPC was
added as her husband succumbed to his injuries during
treatment. He further submits that the police investigated the
case and recorded the statement of several witnesses who have
supported the occurrence. Notably, in paragraph 46 of the case
diary, the fardbeyan of Dinesh Ray, recorded in the emergency
ward of Patna Medical College and Hospital, claims to be an
eyewitness and fully supports the prosecution's case.
Additionally, in paragraph 47 of the case diary, the inquest
report was found to be consistent with the allegations made in
the FIR, showing injuries caused by a hard blunt object.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83284 of 2019(6) dt.20-01-2026
4/7
submitted that since the beginning, the informant had doubts
regarding the investigation, and on 30.05.2017, she filed a
protest petition before the concerned court. In the FIR, the
informant had specifically alleged that accused Umakant Thakur
assaulted her husband with a rod in her presence, and the other
accused Jaykant Thakur, Srikant Thakur, Chanardeo Thakur, and
others were alleged to have assaulted her husband with lathi and
danda. Dinesh Ray, in his fardbeyan, also specifically
implicated opposite parties No. 2 to 5. Despite this, the
investigating officer submitted the final form against the
accused persons No. 2 to 5 on 16.06.2017 and 30.04.2018, vide
Final Reports No. 110/17 and 72/18, respectively, and submitted
a charge sheet only against Mohan Das, Manjay Das, and
Rabida.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that after submission of Charge sheet only against
three persons and the final form against opposite parties no. 2 to
5, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar vide order
dated 25.2.19 took cognizance against all the accused persons
whose names were mentioned in Column 7 of the FIR after
finding sufficient material against all accused persons in the
diary.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83284 of 2019(6) dt.20-01-2026
5/7
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that opposite parties no. 2 to 5 have challenged the
order dated 25.2.19 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sheohar in Cr. Rev. no. 15/19 which was heard and
allowed 17.8.19 by the learned District and Session Judge,
Sheohar setting aside the order dated 25.2.19 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sheohar. He further submits
that the learned District and Session Judge Sheohar has not gone
through the records of the case and without going through the
entire Materials collected by the investigating officer set aside
the order passed by the learned C.J.M, Sheohar on 25.2.19.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sheohar
has only considered the final form submitted by the
investigating officer but has not considered the prosecution
version of the informant, her re-statement and fardbeyan of one
Dinesh Ray mentioned in Para 46 of the case diary and allowed
the Revision application by setting aside the order dated 25.2.19
by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
9. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the
application of the petitioner and has supported the impugned
order.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83284 of 2019(6) dt.20-01-2026
6/7
10. I have heard and considered the submission of the
parties and have gone through the records of the case.
11. This Court is of the view that the learned District
and Sessions Judge, Sheohar, while setting aside the order
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar, has
not considered all the facts and the materials of the case. The
learned District and Sessions Judge, Sheohar, should have
considered all aspects of the case, including the statements of
the informant and key witnesses, as well as the inquest report
and other corroborative evidence. The learned District and
Sessions Judge, Sheohar has only considered the final form
submitted by the I.O. but has not considered the prosecution
version of the informant, her restatement and fardbeyan of one
Dinesh Ray.
12. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had rightly
taken cognizance of the offences against all the accused persons
named in the FIR after considering the entire evidence and
material gathered during the investigation.
13. In view of the discussions made above, the
application stands allowed. Accordingly, the order dated
17.8.2019 passed by the learned District and Session Judge,
Sheohar in Criminal Revision No. 15/2019, setting aside the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83284 of 2019(6) dt.20-01-2026
7/7
order dated 25.2.19 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate Sheohar in Tariyani P.S. Case no. 41/2017 is hereby
quashed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…