Jhulan Yadav @ Jhulan Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4457 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1407 of 2020
              Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2014 Thana- SC/ST District- Buxar
     ======================================================

1. JHULAN YADAV @ JHULAN SINGH Son of Late Ramanand Yadav Resident of Village- Baradho Tola, P.S.- Sikraul, Distt- Buxar

2. Lallan Yadav @ Lallan Singh S/o - Late Swarup Yadav Resident of Village-

Basaon Kala (Kanli Dera), P.S.- Sikraul, Distt- Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR

2. Seema Devi W/o Yogendra Nut Resident of Village- Badhari Rola, P.S.-

Sikraol, Distt- Buxar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Vijay Kumar
     For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Ajit Kumar

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH CAV JUDGMENT Date : 11-08-2022

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State. Despite valid service of notice, nobody

appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of order

of cognizance dated 18.12.2017 passed by learned Additional

District & Sessions Judge 1st Buxar in SC/ST Case No. 123 of

2017, arising out of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 12 of 2014, whereby he

has taken cognizance and summoned the petitioners and other two

co-accused persons under Sections 395, 397, 376/34 of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1407 of 2020 dt.11-08-2022

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter

referred to as SC/ST Act).

3. The present case, in brief, is that in the night of

03.02.2014 at about 11:00 PM, all the accused persons including

appellants and three unknown persons entered into the house of

informant/opposite party no. 2, armed with fire-arms, and

thereafter, two of the accused persons committed rape with the

informant. It is further alleged that accused persons also looted

cloths, ornaments etc. and on alarm, being raised by the

informant, some villagers arrived there and accused persons fled

away.

4. Initially, the complaint petition was filed, which was

referred under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the police and

thereafter, F.I.R. was registered. After investigation, the police

submitted final report finding the case false on 31.08.2017,

however; the learned court below took cognizance in the case on

18.12.2017 differing with the final report submitted by the police,

which is under-challenge.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the

court below, differing with the final form, has passed impugned

order without assigning any reason for differing with the final

form. It is next submitted that the complaint has been filed after a Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1407 of 2020 dt.11-08-2022

delay of three days without any plausible explanation of delay. It

is next submitted that there is no medical evidence regarding

assault or rape in this case. Lastly, it is submitted that without any

application of judicial mind, cognizance has been taken by the

learned court below.

6. However, learned counsel for the State vehemently

opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submits

that order of cognizance is just and proper and the learned court

below, after careful consideration of the complaint petition and the

materials collected during course of investigation, arrived at a

prima facie conclusion against the accused persons that the

offence under Sections 395, 397, 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code

and Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act is made out and at this stage, no

interference is required by this Court.

7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the

parties and materials available on record, this Court is of the

opinion that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court below is

not required to assign reason. At the stage of taking cognizance, a

Magistrate is only required to look into the allegation made in the

complaint or evidence led in support of the same and is only

required to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for

proceeding against the accused. Merely on the ground that there is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1407 of 2020 dt.11-08-2022

no medical report available on the record or there is delay in filing

the complaint, order of cognizance cannot be interfered with.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no ground is

made out by the petitioners to quash the order of cognizance and

hence this petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                                            (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.)

Anay
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                04.08.2022
Uploading Date          11.08.2022
Transmission Date       11.08.2022