Patna High Court
Brajendra Kumar Sinha @ Brijendra Kumar ... vs The State Of Bihar on 20 December, 2023
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.317 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2020 Thana- PIRBAHOR District- Patna
======================================================
1. Brajendra Kumar Sinha @ Brijendra Kumar Sinha Son Of Late Shyam
Narayan Mehta Resident Of Village - Mahavir Lane, Mussalahpur, P.S.-
Pirbahore, Distt.- Patna (Bihar)
2. Jaywanti Devi @ Jayanti Devi W/O Brajendra Kumar Sinha Resident Of
Village - Mahavir Lane, Mussalahpur, P.S.- Pirbahore, Distt.- Patna (Bihar)
3. Prity Bharti @ Preeti Bharti @ Preeti Kumari @ Preeti W/O Sri Chandan
Kumar Sinha Resident Of Village - Mahavir Lane, Mussalahpur, P.S.-
Pirbahore, Distt.- Patna (Bihar)
4. Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Son Of Sri Brajendra Kumar Sinha Resident
Of Village - Mahavir Lane, Mussalahpur, P.S.- Pirbahore, Distt.- Patna
(Bihar)
5. Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Son Of Sri Brajendra Kumar Sinha Resident Of
Village - Mahavir Lane, Mussalahpur, P.S.- Pirbahore, Distt.- Patna (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saket Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Soham Dutta, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Raj, Advocate
Mr. Baua Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 20.12.2023
Heard Mr. Saket Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been
filed for quashing the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the
learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-XXVI, Patna
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.317 of 2022 dt.20-12-2023
2/7
arising out of Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 103 of 2020 by which the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-XXVI has been pleased to
dismiss the discharge application filed by the petitioners.
3. The aforesaid Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 103 of 2020
was instituted on 17.02.2020 in respect of an occurrence of the
offence which took place on the same date on the basis of
written report of one Shivendra Kumar Shivam, who is the son
of the deceased, namely, Late Dhirendra Kumar Akela. In his
written report he alleges that there was a passage dispute
between the informant's family and the family of the petitioner
and earlier also all the accused persons have threatened to kill
the father of the informant. It is further alleged that the
petitioner along with other accused persons hatched a
conspiracy and killed the father of the informant.
4. That on the statement of the son of the deceased,
the F.I.R was instituted and investigation was taken up. After
investigation, the police has submitted Final Form No. 80 of
2020 dated 12.05.2020, stating therein that co-accused persons
namely, Suraj Kumar, Chandan Kumar @ Khujli @ Machli @
Dalla, Aman Kumar and Akhilesh @ Chedi have been charge
sheeted under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The police further stated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.317 of 2022 dt.20-12-2023
3/7
in the aforesaid charge sheet that the petitioner and other co-
accused persons namely, Sujit Mehta, Chhotu Sao, Brajendra
Kumar Sinha @ Brijendra Kumar Sinha, Jaywanti Devi @
Jayanti Devi, Prity Bharti @ Preeti Bharti @ Priti Kumari @
Preeti, Chandan Kumar @ Chandan and Arvind Kumar @
Arvind, no evidence was gathered during investigation
implicating the role of this petitioner or the case to be false. The
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna differing with the
police report took cognizance by an order dated 30.05.2020 of
the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
5. He further submits that the police after investigation
submitted its report vide Final Form No. 80 of 2020 dated
12.05.2020
for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
27 of Arms Act. The police report indicates that :-
(a) the accused persons namely, Suraj Kumar, Chandan Kumar
@ Khujli @ Machli @ Dalla, Aman Kumar and Akhilesh @
Chedi have been charge sheeted by the Investigating Officer of
the case.
(b) the police has submitted the final report against the
petitioners and their family members stating therein that no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.317 of 2022 dt.20-12-2023
evidence was gathered implicating the role and involvement of
the petitioners and such other persons in the case.
6. It appears from the investigation report of the case
that no material was gathered by the police with respect to the
involvement of the petitioners and their family members in the
alleged murder of late Dhirendra Kumar Akela. No evidence has
come indicating any threatening given by the petitioners or their
family members, at any point of time, to the deceased or any of
this family members and not a single material has come during
investigation to suggest/support the involvement of the
petitioners including their family members in the alleged murder
of late Dhirendra Kumar Akela to constitute a case against the
petitioners or their family members.
7. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna while differing
with the police report and in a very mechanical manner took
cognizance for the offences under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act vide
order dated 30.05.2020 and accordingly, summons to all accused
persons have been issued. The learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Patna had not assigned any specific reason while
taking different view other than that of the police report.
8. Bare perusal of the investigation report / police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.317 of 2022 dt.20-12-2023
report, it would manifest that no complicity of the petitioners in
the matter was found and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Patna without perusing any other materials, otherwise, issued
summons to the petitioners in the present case.
9. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State on the other hand submits that when a
quashing application has been filed challenging the order of
discharge petition, in that event, this Hon'ble Court has to be
cautious and circumspect, for the reason that the application is
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that bare
perusal of the impugned order of the Court comes to the
conclusion that the reasons are assigned in the order. It appears
that the Court has rightly rejected the discharge application of
the petitioners. He refers to the judgment reported in 2016 SCC
Online Patna, 8303 (Kailash Rai Vs. State of Bihar and
others) held by the Patna High Court. It is clear that if the
contents of the complaint or an First Information Report
institute offence and when the Court has prima facie satisfied
that the case is made out against the petitioners, then the Court
may took cognizance against the petitioners. He further submits
that the petitioners have already challenged the order dated
30.05.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.317 of 2022 dt.20-12-2023
Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 103 of 2020 in Revision No. 261 of
2021 and the same was dismissed by the learned District and
Sessions Judge, vide order dated 20.11.2021.
10. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is within the ambit of the
High Court's inherent powers and is relatively unusual in
criminal law. According to Section 227 of the Code, if the Judge
determines that there are sufficient ground to proceed against
the accused after hearing the prosecution and the accused
arguments and taking into account the case filed and any
document submitted with it, he shall differ with the police
report. The learned Judge should examines the specific charges
levelled against each accused and in accordance with Section
239 of the Code to determine whether the case has been made
out against the petitioners or not.
11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
further submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it
manifest that the learned Court has rightly rejected the discharge
petition of the petitioners and the order impugned did not call
for any interference.
12. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court is not
inclined to entertain this quashing application.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.317 of 2022 dt.20-12-2023
13. In the result, this quashing application stands
rejected.
14. Dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 08.12.2022
Uploading Date 20.12.2023
Transmission Date 20.12.2023
