RAJENDRA SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9947 of 2020
          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2016 Thana- BARAUNI District- Begusarai
     ======================================================
1.   Rajendra Singh Son Of Late Babu Singh Resident Of Village - Chakballi,
     P.S.- Barauni (Refinery O.P.), District- Begusarai
2.   Bauwa Kumar Son Of Rajendra Singh Resident Of Village - Chakballi, P.S.-
     Barauni (Refinery O.P.), District- Begusarai
3.   Amit Singh Son Of Rajendra Singh Resident Of Village - Chakballi, P.S.-
     Barauni (Refinery O.P.), District- Begusarai
4.   Pintu Kumar Son Of Virendra Singh @ Birendra Singh Resident Of Village -
     Chakballi, P.S.- Barauni (Refinery O.P.), District- Begusarai
5.   Virendra Singh @ Birendra Singh Son Of Late Lalbabu Singh Resident Of
     Village - Chakballi, P.S.- Barauni (Refinery O.P.), District- Begusarai
6.   Subodh Singh Son Of Late Lal Babu Singh Resident Of Village - Chakballi,
     P.S.- Barauni (Refinery O.P.), District- Begusarai
7.   Murari Singh @ Murari Kumar Singh @ Murari Kumar Son Of Late
     Surendra Singh Resident Of Village - Chakballi, P.S.- Barauni (Refinery
     O.P.), District- Begusarai
8.   Tripurari Singh @ Tripurati Kumar Son Of Late Surendra Singh Resident Of
     Village - Chakballi, P.S.- Barauni (Refinery O.P.), District- Begusarai
9.   Anamol Anand @ Anmol Singh Son Of Rajendra Singh Resident Of Village
     - Chakballi, P.S.- Barauni (Refinery O.P.), District- Begusarai

                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                            Versus

1.   The State Of Bihar
2.   Kanchan Kumari Wife Of Keshav Kumar Resident Of Village - Sihama,
     P.S.- Matihani, District- Begusarai

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
     For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
     For the O.P. No. 2       :        Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                           ORAL ORDER
         Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9947 of 2020(3) dt.03-02-2026
                                                     2/11




3   03-02-2026                  Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

                   learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the O.P.

                   No. 2.

                                2. This application has been filed for quashing order

                   dated 28.8.2018 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

                   Begusarai in Barauni P.S. Case No. 189/16 whereby and where

                   under learned Magistrate took cognizance against petitioners for

                   offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 337, 504

                   and 427 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for quashing the

                   order dated 24/5/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions

                   Judge-IX, Begusarai passed in Cr. Revision No 348/18 whereby

                   the Court below disposed off the revision application filed by

                   the petitioners against the aforesaid cognizance order dated

                   28/8/2018 in Barauni P.S. Case No. 189/16.

                                3. The prosecution case, in short, as disclosed in the

                   petition of complaint, is that on 15/08/2011 at about 6:00 in the

                   morning, all accused persons, including the petitioners, are said

                   to have reached the house of opposite party No. 2. Petitioner

                   No. 1, who was carrying a rifle in his hand, started abusing and

                   asked about Arun. On being opposed by opposite party No. 2

                   and her mother, Rajendra Singh is said to have assaulted her

                   with the butt portion of the rifle on her abdomen and other parts,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9947 of 2020(3) dt.03-02-2026
                                            3/11




          due to which she suffered pain in her abdomen as she was

          carrying a pregnancy of 6 months. They are also said to have

          threatened her to withdraw a case before the D.C.L.R.,

          otherwise, the entire family would be killed. It is further

          disclosed by the informant that the matter was reported to the

          police immediately, and a written application in this regard was

          also given. The police detained the informant, her sisters Seema

          Kumari, Priya Kumari, and Rinku Devi at the police station the

          whole day. She was taken to the Primary Health Centre,

          Barauni, for treatment and from there, she was referred to the

          Sadar Hospital. It is alleged that she was not taken to the Sadar

          Hospital and on 26/08/2011, she was allowed to leave the Police

          Station and was taken to the clinic of Dr. Ram Naresh Singh, but

          abortion could not be averted. On the basis of Complaint Case

          No. 935/2016, an FIR vide Barauni P.S. Case No. 189/16 was

          registered. The investigation was completed, the police

          submitted a charge sheet.

                       4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

          the petitioners are innocent, have committed no offence, and

          have been falsely implicated in the present case with an oblique

          purpose and ulterior motive. It is stated that the present case has

          been lodged to put pressure on the petitioners to compromise in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9947 of 2020(3) dt.03-02-2026
                                            4/11




          Barauni (Refinery O.P.) P.S. Case No. 209/11 and also to create

          a defense. He further submits that for an occurrence said to have

          taken place on 25.08.2011 at about 6:00 in the morning, a

          complaint case was filed on 22/04/2016 on behalf of the

          complainant/opposite party No. 2 before the learned Chief

          Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, which was forwarded to the

          police on 23.04.2016 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for the

          institution of F.I.R. and investigation thereof. Accordingly, the

          present FIR was registered on 11/05/2016.

                       5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

          submits that the petitioners and the prosecution side are agnates,

          and there was a land dispute between them. The prosecution

          side had opened a drainage in the field of the petitioners, and on

          25.08.2011, when the petitioners tried to stop them, the brother

          of opposite party No. 2, namely Chandan Singh, opened fire

          from his rifle, hitting Avinash @ Vinit, who died on the spot.

          Other accused persons also fired, causing injuries to Anmol and

          Pintu Kumar. Narrating the entire occurrence, petitioner No. 1

          gave a written report, on the basis of which Barauni (Refinery

          O.P.) P.S. Case No. 209/11 was registered against the father,

          mother, and two brothers of opposite party No. 2, as well as

          other persons, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9947 of 2020(3) dt.03-02-2026
                                            5/11




          149, 323, 307, 302 and 337 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the

          Arms Act. He further submits that on the same day, i.e.,

          25/08/2011, the brother of opposite party No. 2, namely Neeraj

          Kumar Singh, filed Complaint Case No. 1849C/2011 before the

          learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, against all the

          petitioners, alleging false and frivolous allegations and

          concocting a story. The case was dismissed by order dated

          06/08/2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

          Begusarai, under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal

          Procedure, finding that the complaint was lodged to create

          pressure and save themselves from the murder case.

                       6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

          submits that it would not be out of place to mention here that in

          the aforesaid complaint case, there is no mention of the fact that

          opposite party No. 2 was assaulted by petitioner No. 1, due to

          which she suffered a miscarriage. After investigation, the police

          submitted a charge sheet, finding the accusations to be true for

          offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 337,504 and 427 of

          the Indian Penal Code, vide Charge Sheet No. 323/18 dated

          13/07/2018. By the impugned order dated 28.08.2018 passed by

          the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, cognizance

          was taken against the petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 149,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9947 of 2020(3) dt.03-02-2026
                                            6/11




          323, 337, 504 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, in complete

          disregard of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

                       7. He further submits that the petitioners challenged

          the aforesaid order of cognizance before the learned Sessions

          Judge, Begusarai, vide Cr. Revision No. 348/18, which was

          disposed of by order dated 24.05.2019 passed by learned

          Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Begusarai. While disposing of

          the revision application, it was observed that the court has been

          given ample power under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. to condone

          the delay and take cognizance even after the period of

          limitation, if it finds that the interest of justice requires it. It has

          further been observed that “So obviously, after being aware of

          the fact that cognizance is being taken after the lapse of seven

          years, the court has taken cognizance after hearing both parties,

          and it is deemed that, in the interest of justice, the court had

          condoned the delay.”

                       8. The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has

          vehemently opposed the application of the petitioner and has

          submitted that the factual matrix, in brief, is that two cases were

          lodged concerning the same occurrence that took place on

          25.08.2011. One case, Barauni (Refinery O.P.) P.S. Case No.

          209/11, was lodged by the present petitioners under Sections
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9947 of 2020(3) dt.03-02-2026
                                            7/11




          147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302, 337 of the Indian Penal Code

          (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The other case, Barauni

          P.S. Case No. 189/16, was lodged by the O.P. No. 2 of the

          present application under Sections 149, 313, 449, 452, 120(B),

          and 34 IPC. She further submits that the case filed by the

          petitioners was committed for trial after investigation and has

          been numbered as Sessions Trial No. 88/12. In the case filed by

          O.P. No. 2, after much effort and following the leave granted by

          this Court in Cr. WJC No. 624/15, the police submitted a

          chargesheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 337, 504, and

          427 IPC. Cognizance was subsequently taken vide order dated

          28.08.2018, which is one of the orders being challenged in the

          present application. Thereafter, O.P. No. 2 filed a petition for the

          transfer of the case lodged by her, seeking that it be tried

          alongside the case lodged by the petitioners. The petition was

          allowed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai, vide order

          dated 24.09.2018.

                       9. She further submits that the records of the case

          filed by O.P. No. 2 were transferred from the Court of the

          Learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Begusarai, to the Court

          of the Learned Additional District Judge-I, Begusarai.

          Subsequently, both the petitioners and O.P. No. 2 moved before
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9947 of 2020(3) dt.03-02-2026
                                            8/11




          the revisional court in Cr. Revision No. 348/18 and Cr. Revision

          No. 307/18, respectively, challenging the order taking

          cognizance. The petitioners' revision application was partly

          allowed by the order dated 24.05.2019, with respect to the

          offences under Sections 337 and 427 IPC, while directing that

          the order taking cognizance for the remaining sections should

          remain intact.

                       10. The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 further

          submits that on the same day, O.P. No. 2's application was

          dismissed by the same court, holding that the order does not

          suffer from any illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error.

          She further submits that at present, the case filed by O.P. No. 2

          is ongoing and is scheduled for charge before the Learned

          Additional Sessions Judge XI, Begusarai, numbered as T.R. No.

          213/19. However, due to the petitioners' willful conduct, charges

          are not being framed in the said case. Moreover, without

          bringing these facts to the attention of this Hon'ble Court, the

          petitioners have been granted a stay in the case lodged by O.P.

          No. 2. This is causing significant prejudice to O.P. No. 2.

          Therefore, in the interests of justice, O.P. No. 2 prays that either

          the present application be heard and disposed of at the earliest

          or the present application be dismissed. Alternatively, any other
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9947 of 2020(3) dt.03-02-2026
                                            9/11




          relief or direction as deemed appropriate by this Court may be

          granted.

                       11. It is further submitted that when opposing the

          prayer for bail in the case filed by the petitioners, the petitioners

          had undertaken to cooperate with the trial at every stage.

          However, they have failed to fulfill this undertaking at any stage

          of the proceedings. Once there has been a judicial order

          directing that the present case be heard alongside the other case,

          and the records have already been transferred to the appropriate

          court where the case is now pending for charge, it is wholly

          unjustified that the petitioners, without challenging the said

          orders and without bringing them to the attention of this Court,

          filed the present application. As a result, a stay order was passed

          in their favour regarding the order taking cognizance.

                       12. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of

          the case, and after hearing the arguments from both sides, I am

          of the view that in the present case, cognizance was taken by the

          Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, despite a

          significant delay of over seven years from the date of the

          alleged occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge, in the revision

          application, rightly observed that the delay in filing the

          complaint and taking cognizance should have been condoned in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9947 of 2020(3) dt.03-02-2026
                                           10/11




          the interest of justice, relying on Section 473 of the Cr.P.C.

          However, the circumstances leading to such delay have not been

          sufficiently explained, and there is no concrete evidence to

          justify the delay to the satisfaction of the court.

                       13. Furthermore, it is evident that the case lodged by

          O.P. No. 2 against the petitioners appears to have been filed as a

          counterblast to the case lodged by the petitioners in Barauni

          (Refinery O.P.) P.S. Case No. 209/11, which is pending trial.

          The orders under challenge suffer from procedural irregularities

          and a lack of proper justification for the delay in taking

          cognizance. As such, the continuation of these proceedings

          against the petitioners is unjustified and would amount to an

          abuse of the process of law.

                       14. In view of the above, this application stands

          allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the

          learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in Barauni P.S.

          Case No. 189 of 2016 as well as the order dated 24.05.2019

          passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Begusarai,

          in Cr. Revision No. 348/18, and all the consequential

          proceedings arising out of Barauni P.S. Case No. 189 of 2016

          against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

                       15. The concerned Court below is directed to
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9947 of 2020(3) dt.03-02-2026
                                                       11/11




                      conclude the Sessions Trial No. 88 of 2012 at the earliest.



                                                                 (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-

U       T