Birendra Kumar @ Birendra Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2025 Latest Caselaw 1951 Patna

Patna High Court

Birendra Kumar @ Birendra Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 25 February, 2025

Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha

Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40963 of 2022
      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2013 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
                                    District- East Champaran
     ======================================================
     Birendra Kumar @ Birendra Singh Son of Late Yadunandan Singh Resident
     of Village - Korawan, P.S.- Naubatpur, District- Patna (Bihar)

                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus
1.   The State of Bihar
2.   Sudama Ram Son of Late Sukham Ram Resident of Village - Maguraha,
     P.S.- Govindganj, District- East Champaran (Bihar)

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :   Ms. Leelawati Kumari, Adv
     For the Opposite Party/s :   Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
     ORAL JUDGMENT

     Date : 25-02-2025


                      1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

      learned counsel for the respondents.

                       2. The present quashing petition has been

      preferred to quash the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by

      learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Spl. Judge SC/ST

      Act, East Champaran, Motihari in Cr. Rev. No. 105 of 2014

      and also against order dated 28.04.2014 as passed by

      learned ACJM-XIV, Motihari arising out of Complaint Case No.

      283 (C) of 2013 in which learned ACJM-XIV, Motihari took

      cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 304 of
 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40963 of 2022 dt.25-02-2025
                                            2/8




         the Indian Penal Code & Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

                         3. The brief facts of the case is that the

         complainant Sada Ram filed complaint petition vide C-283/13

         against the petitioner and one another alleging therein that

         his son Pramod Ram had gone in a marriage party on

         04.12.2013

and while returning at about 10:00 PM he was hit

by a Bolero Jeep bearing registration no. BR 05 P 3481, due

to which he got injured and fell down on the road. On getting

information by one Deepak Kumar of village Majurahan, the

complainant along with his family members arrived at the spot

by Tata Magic and found Pramod Ram injured laying in a ditch

beside the road. In the meantime, accused persons along with

some other unknown police man also arrived there, when the

complainant and other persons told them to give proper

medical assistance to injured Pramod Ram, they did not do so

rather they forcibly lifted injured and threw him in another

pick-up van, due to which injured Pramod Ram again

sustained serious injury. Therefore, they forcibly declared

Pramod Ram dead and sent his dead body to Sadar Hospital,

Motihari for post mortem. At that time when complainant, his Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40963 of 2022 dt.25-02-2025

wife and Mukesh Ram protested, the accused persons called

by caste name of the complainant, his family members and

abused them and threatened to beat them by stick, they also

took thumb impression of complainant on plain paper forcibly

and threatened him if he does anything wrong he would be

assaulted. It has been further alleged that when the said

matter of police atrocities floated in the locality then the

villagers and nearby people assembled there and blocked the

road, when police did not take any action then complainant

filed this complaint petition.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel that O.P.

No. 2/complainant Sudama Ram was also the informant of

Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 40 of 2013, where his son died in a

road accident. It is submitted that as per said FIR son of

informant/O.P. No. 2 died on spot. It is pointed that

protesting against said road accident, road was jammed and

for said occurrence police lodged a case against

complaint/O.P. No. 2 as Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 41 of 2013. It

is submitted that after passing of three days, complainant

lodged a complaint case which has been registered as Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40963 of 2022 dt.25-02-2025

Complaint Case No. 283 (C) of 2013, wherein it was alleged

that petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons, who were

police officials namely Ram Prasad Singh, send his injured son

for post mortem instead of sending him to hospital for

treatment and, therefore, they committed murder of his son.

5. In this context, it is further pointed out by learned counsel

that the cognizance order qua co-accused Ram Pramod Singh,

has already quashed by this Court through Cr. Misc. No.

31687 of 2014 dated 01.03.2019 (annexure no. 7). It is

submitted that case of petitioner is fully covered by aforesaid

judgment, being similarly situated co-accused person.

6. It would be apposite to reproduce the

paragraph no. 102 of the Apex Court decision in the case of

State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and

Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court

Cases 335, which reads as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40963 of 2022 dt.25-02-2025

under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first informant report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40963 of 2022 dt.25-02-2025

within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of nay offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-

cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40963 of 2022 dt.25-02-2025

continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

7. Learned APP appearing on behalf of State,

while opposing the application submitted that though the

cognizance taken by the Court below is on the basis of the

materials before it, however it transpires that three criminal

cases were lodged related with same incident. It is also

conceded that present criminal case appears to be lodged

subsequently.

8. In view of aforesaid factual and legal

discussions, it appears to this Court that the present

prosecution was lodged against the petitioner, who is a police Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40963 of 2022 dt.25-02-2025

official and was on duty, with mala fide/oblique motive, which

is completely untenable and appears solely intended to harass

him. Case of petitioner demands discipline of judicial parity

qua co-accused Ram Pramod Singh, which was quashed

through Cr. Misc. No. 31687 of 2014 dated 01.03.2019, as

discussed above. Accordingly, by taking note of guidelines as

mentioned in para nos. 5, 6 and 7 of Bhajan Lal Case

(supra), impugned order of cognizance dated 09.12.2019,

with all its consequential proceedings, qua, petitioner arising

thereof as passed in Complaint Case No. 283 C of 2013,

pending before learned ACJM-XIV, Motihari is hereby quashed

and set aside.

9. Hence, this application stands allowed.

10. TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be returned to

the learned Trial Court alongwith the copy of this order.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) S.Tripathi/-

AFR/NAFR                          NAFR
CAV DATE                          NA
Uploading Date                    28.02.2025
Transmission Date                 28.02.2025