Patna High Court
Ketan Chaudhary @ Ketan Kumar ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The trial court’s dismissal of the complaint for lack of a sanction order and inconsistent witness statements is lawful, and the revision petition is dismissed.
Summary
Ketan Chaudhary filed a criminal revision challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Darbhanga, which dismissed his complaint (Case No. 437 of 2022) under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that no sanction order was on record. The complaint alleged assault and abuse by police officials, and the trial court had examined the complainant and three enquiry witnesses whose statements were found to be inconsistent regarding the date and time of the incident. The State argued that the lack of a sanction order and divergent witness testimony justified dismissal. The High Court examined whether the trial court’s order suffered from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and concluded that the court had duly considered the evidence and applied the law correctly. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. for want of a sanction order is legally valid.
- Whether the trial court committed any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in dismissing the complaint.
- Whether the revision petition should be allowed to set aside the trial court’s order.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 203
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 379, 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal revision
- Section 203 CrPC
- sanction order
- police assault
- complaint dismissal
- irregularity
- illegality
- inconsistent witness statements
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.784 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-437 Year-2022 Thana- DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE
District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Ketan Chaudhary @ Ketan Kumar Chaudhary Son of Dayanath Choudhary
Resident of- Village and PO - Darhar, Bahadurpur, P S - Bahadurpur, District-
Darbhanga, Bihar-846001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ranjan Kumar, then the SHO Shakatpur Son of Preman Prasad Resident of
Village - Mai, PS - Dhanarua, District- Patna, Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Apurv Harsh, Advocate
Mr. Manu Tripurari, Advocate
Mr. Raghu Raj Pratap, Advocate
Ms. Anu Priya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Shamir Mehra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 29-04-2026 Re :- I.A. No. 01 of 2025
This is an application for condonation of delay of 290
days in filing the present revision application.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in
filing the revision application is condoned.
3. The interlocutory application is accordingly
disposed of.
CR. REV. No. 784 of 2024
On 23.03.2026, a detailed order has been passed
which reads as under:-
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.784 of 2024(6) dt.29-04-2026
2/7
Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present revision application
has been filed against the order dated
22.08.2023 passed in Darbhanga Complaint
Case No. 437 of 2022 by the Judicial
Magistrate, Ist Class, Darbhanga whereby and
whereunder the learned trial court dismissed
the complaint petition under Section 203 of
Cr.P.C. on the sole ground of want of sanction
order.
3. As per prosecution case, the
complainant/informant registered a case in
Saketpur Police Station, Darbhanga wherein it
is alleged that some of the police officials along
with other assaulted and abused the
informant/complainant. They also assaulted the
complainant/informant, however, some police
men of Laheria Sarai police station tried to
save the complaint/informant and took him
inside the police station.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that initially, an FIR was lodged in
connection with which the
informant/complainant had gone to the police
station with his uncle. He further submits that
present case bearing Laherisarai P.S. Case No.
251 of 2018 was registered against O.P. No. 2
under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504, 506 of IPC.
He further submits that the Investigating Officer
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.784 of 2024(6) dt.29-04-2026
3/7
has submitted final report in the said case and
communicated that the case is true, but
clueless. He further submits that a protest
petition has been filed in the present case i.e.
Laherisarai P.S. Case No. 251 of 2018. He
further submits that the petitioner has filed a
protest petition which has been treated as
Complaint Case No. 437 of 2022 and on
22.08.2023 the court, after examining the
complainant as well as three enquiry witnesses,
has dismissed the complaint after recording
reasoning that there is no sanction order on
record and dismissed the complainant petition.
Hence, the present revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the State
has vehemently submitted that in the present
case FIR has been lodged bearing Laheria
Sarai P.S. Case No. 251 of 2018 by the
informant/complainant and after investigation,
the final report has been submitted and the case
is found clueless and the concerned court has
given ample opportunity to
complainant/informant by treating the protest
petition as Complainant Case No. 437 of 2022
and the complainant was also examined on oath
and produced three enquiry witnesses namely,
Sanjeev Kumar Chaudhary, Mithu Kumar and
Ranju Devi and in support of complaint, it has
been submitted that enquiry witness no. 1 said
nothing about the time and date of occurrence
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.784 of 2024(6) dt.29-04-2026
4/7
and enquiry witness no. 2 in his statement has
stated that occurrence took place on 16.05.2018
at about 07:30 and the court has given very
sound reasoning on the basis of material
available on record that the enquiry witnesses
have divergent statements regarding the
occurrence. Lastly, the court has also quoted
that sanction order is also not available on
record.
6. In the case of revision petition, the
court has to see whether the order suffers from
illegality, irregularity and impropriety.
7. While passing the impugned order,
the concerned court has given wider focus on
the statements of all the enquiry witnesses and
has explained how the complaint has been
dismissed. In this way, there is no reason to
differ from the finding of the concerned court.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for
the petitioner seeks two weeks’ time to file some
necessary documents through supplementary
affidavit.
9. Time, as prayed for, is granted.
10. Re-list this matter on 06.04.2026.
11. It is made clear that if learned
counsel for the petitioner fails to file
supplementary affidavit on the next date of
hearing, the matter would be decided on the
basis of the materials available on record.
2. On 23.03.2026, adjournment has been sought by
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.784 of 2024(6) dt.29-04-2026
5/7
the learned counsel for the petitioner to file some necessary
documents through supplementary affidavit on the next date of
hearing. Again, on 06.04.2026 time was given as a last chance
with a condition that if the same attitude continues on the next
date of hearing, the matter would be dismissed for non-
prosecution.
3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner is present
and no supplementary affidavit has been filed. In this way, it is
necessary to adjudicate the matter finally.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed
supplementary affidavit but he is aggrieved with the impugned
order passed by the concerned Magistrate. He submits that the
informant is a victim of assault, but the learned trial court did
not go through the material available on record and passed the
impugned order.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2
submits that while dismissing the complaint petition
complainant was examined and three enquiry witnesses were
also examined in support of his complaint but their statements
regarding the said occurrence are divergent.
6. Learned counsel for the State has also supported the
order of dismissal which has been passed by the concerned
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.784 of 2024(6) dt.29-04-2026
6/7
Magistrate.
7. After hearing the parties concerned, it is evident
that in para 5 of the order dated 23.03.2026 elaborate discussion
has been made where the learned counsel for the State has taken
plea that all the enquiry witnesses have been examined in
support of the complaint and enquiry witness 1 has stated
nothing about the time and date of occurrence and enquiry
witness 2 has stated that the occurrence took place on
16.05.2018 at about 07:30 a.m. and the reasoning of the court is
that enquiry witnesses have divergent statements regarding the
occurrence and the court has quoted that sanction order is also
not on record.
8. After going through the material available on
record, it is crystal clear that while dismissing the complaint, the
court has discussed all the enquiry witnesses and their
statements are inconsistent with each other regarding the date
and time of occurrence. The very core aspect of the complaint
has not been supported by the enquiry witnesses. In this way, the
order passed by the concerned court is not, in any way, in
derogation of statutory provisions and there is no reason to
differ from the finding of the concerned court and there is no
grievance that opportunity was not given by the concerned court
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.784 of 2024(6) dt.29-04-2026
7/7
to adduce the evidences of enquiry witnesses rather sufficient
opportunity was given for examining the enquiry witnesses and
the court, after perusing the material on record, reached to the
particular conclusion and dismissed the complaint petition. The
contention of the learned counsel for the State as well as learned
counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 is quite tenable and
sustainable in the light of the facts and circumstances of the
case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not succeeded to
prove as to why order of the learned trial court suffers from
irregularity, illegality and impropriety. In this way, the order of
the concerned court is justified and legal.
9. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition
stands dismissed.
10. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
amitkumar/-
U T
Checking your session…