Patna High Court
Bajrangbali Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 15 July, 2025
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.10 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-540 Year-2014 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
Rohtas
======================================================
1. Bajrangbali Singh Son of Late Lakshman Singh Resident of Mohalla -
Company Sarai, Near Stand Ford School, Prabhakar Road, Sasaram, P.O.
Sasaram, P.S. Model Police Station Sasaram, District - Rohtas at Sasaram.
2. Shanti Devi @ Shanti Singh Wife of Bajrangbali Singh Resident of Mohalla
- Company Sarai, Near Stand Ford School, Prabhakar Road, Sasaram, P.O.
Sasaram, P.S. Model Police Station Sasaram, District - Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Rita Singh, Wife of Navneet Kumar and Daughter of Late Ashok Kumar
Singh, Resident of Mohalla - Company Sarai, Near Stand Ford School,
Prabhakar Road, Sasaram, P.O. Sasaram, P.S. Model Police Station Sasaram,
District - Rohtas at Sasaram, Presently residing at Village - Nonhar, P.O. and
P.S. Surajpura, District - Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vikash Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Sakshi Deep, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-07-2025
Introduction
The present Criminal Revision petition has been
preferred against the impugned order dated 17.10.2019, passed
by learned A.C.J.M.-I, Bikramganj, Rohtas in Complaint Case
No. 540 of 2014, corresponding to Trial No. 933 of 2019,
whereby learned A.C.J.M-I has summoned the petitioners herein
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.10 of 2020 dt.15-07-2025
under Section 319 Cr.PC to face the trial along with the accused
persons, who are already facing the trial.
The factual background
2. The factual background of this case is that one
Criminal Complaint bearing No. 540 of 2014 was filed by one
Rita Singh, who is opposite party No.2 herein, against five
accused persons, including the petitioners for offence
punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 308 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of D.P. Act. The accused, as
per the complaint, were as follows:
(i) Bajrangbali Singh, who is father-in-law of the
complainant and who is also one of the petitioners herein,
(ii) Navneet Kumar, husband of the complainant/Rita
Singh,
(iii) Shanti Devi, mother-in-law of the complainant
and who is also one of the petitioners herein,
(iv) Rajesh Kumar, brother-in-law,
(v) Anita Devi, sister-in-law.
3. However, after inquiry under Section 200 Cr.PC,
learned ACJM-I took cognizance only of offence punishable
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and only against
one accused Navneet Kumar, who happens to be husband of the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.10 of 2020 dt.15-07-2025
complainant.
4. Against this cognizance order, the complainant
preferred Criminal Revision bearing No. 409 of 2014. However,
the same was dismissed and the cognizance order was upheld.
5. It further transpires that after examination of four
witnesses during trial, one application under Section 319 Cr.PC
was filed by the complainant/Rita Singh under Section 319
Cr.PC for summoning the petitioners herein, who are father-in-
law and mother-in-law of the complainant, stating that as per the
evidence which has come during trial, there is sufficient
material to summon them to face the trial with the co-accused.
However, the same was contested by the petitioners by filing
reply to the application of the complainant under Section 319
Cr.PC.
6. However, the application of the complainant under
Section 319 Cr.PC was allowed by the learned ACJM-I vide
order dated 17.10.2019, summoning the petitioners to face the
trial with the co-accused. Being aggrieved by this order, the
petitioners have preferred the present Criminal Revision
Petition.
7. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.10 of 2020 dt.15-07-2025
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. It is settled principle of law that for summoning any
accused under Section 313 Cr.PC, the Court has to see whether
there is strong and cogent evidence against such person laid
before the Court and not merely probability of his complicity.
The evidence which must be more than prima facie case, though
it may be sort of proof for conviction. He further submits that
after perusal of the evidence of four prosecution witnesses
during the trial, it clearly transpires that there is not even a
prima facie case against the petitioners. They are parents-in-law
of the complainant and as per the evidence on record, the
complainant's marriage with her husband has been running into
rough weather on account of disturbed conjugal life. The
complainant has suspicion that her husband/Navneet Kumar,
who is co-accused, has illicit relationship with some other lady
and he is not interested to establish conjugal relationship with
her. It has also come on record that husband/Navneet Kumar,
who is co-accused, on the other hand, has alleged that the
complainant-wife is having illicit relationship and she is cruel
towards him and hence, he has filed divorce petition against his
complainant-wife and only subsequent to filing of this divorce
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.10 of 2020 dt.15-07-2025
petition, this criminal case has been filed against him and his
family members only with intent to harass him and his family
members.
9. He further submits that the allegation against the
petitioners are general and omnibus. There is no specific
allegation with reference to time, place and nature of offence
and on such evidence, even cognizance cannot be taken and
learned Magistrate has already refused to take cognizance
against them and the same set of evidence has again come
during the trial, which is sort of prima facie case, let alone
probability of any conviction. Hence, It would be travesty of
justice, if the petitioners are made to face trial with the co-
accused on such evidence on record.
10. He further submits that it is no longer a secret that
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is being misused to
harass the parents of the husband and this is one of the classic
cases of such harassment. The main grievance of the
complainant is with her husband on account of disturbed
conjugal life, but while filing the criminal case against her
husband, she has falsely implicated the parents-in-law.
11. However, learned APP for the State and learned
counsel for the O.P. No.2 (complainant) defend the impugned
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.10 of 2020 dt.15-07-2025
order submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in it.
There is sufficient material on record to summon the petitioners
under Section 319 Cr.PC.
12. Before I consider the rival submissions of the
parties, it would be desirable to refer to Draupadi Kunwar @
Draupati Kunwar and others vs. State of Bihar reported in
2025 SCC OnLine Pat 34, wherein this Court has elaborately
discussed the law relating to Section 319 Cr.PC after referring to
statutory provisions and the following judicial precedents:
(i) Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors,
(2014) 3 SCC 92
(ii) S. Mohammad Ispahani Vs. Y. Chandak & Ors.
(2017) 16 SCC 226
(iii) Rajesh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana
(2019) 6 SCC 368
(iv) Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
(2021) 18 SCC 321
(v) Jitendra N. Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
(2023) 7 SCC 344
(vi) Juhru & Ors. Vs. Karim and Another
(2023) 5 SCC 406
(vii) OMI @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and Anr. as decided on 3.01.2025
[SLP (Crim) No. 17781 of 2024]
(viii) Joginder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
(1979) 1 SCC 107
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.10 of 2020 dt.15-07-2025
13. After consideration of the statutory provisions and
the aforesaid judicial precedents, this Court in Draupadi
Kunwar (supra) has held as follows:
"24. It also emerges that at the time of
summoning under Section 319 Cr.PC the Court has to see
that there is a strong and cogent evidence against such
person laid before the Court and not merely probability of
his complicity. The degree of satisfaction of the Court is
much stricter. The test that has to be applied is one which
is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of
framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent
that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to
conviction. The "evidence" is limited to the evidence
recorded during trial. The Court can exercise its power
under Section 319 Cr.PC even at the stage of completion
of examination-in-chief and it is not required to wait till
the completion of cross-examination. It is for the Court to
be satisfied regarding the complicity of other persons not
facing the trial in the offence, as per the evidence on
record."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Now coming to the case on hand, I find that
during the trial four witnesses have been examined, whereafter
the petition under Section 319 Cr.PC was filed by the
complainant and on the basis of the evidence of such four
witnesses, the impugned order has been passed summoning the
petitioners to face trial under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code with the co-accused.
15. However, from perusal of the evidence on record,
I find that even a prima facie case is not made out against the
petitioners. It appears surprising how learned ACJM-I has
passed the impugned order summoning them to face the trial
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.10 of 2020 dt.15-07-2025
with the co-accused. As per the evidence of the complainant, it
clearly transpires that she is aggrieved with her husband on
account of disturbed conjugal life and even divorce petition has
been filed by her husband against her and this complaint petition
has been filed subsequently. All the allegations against the
petitioners are general and omnibus without referring to any
date, time and place as well as nature of offence. For
summoning any accused under Section 319 Cr.PC, the standard
of evidence must be much higher than prima facie case, though
it may not be sufficient to convict the accused persons. But from
the perusal of the evidence on record, I find that there is no even
a prima facie case against the petitioners and it was travesty of
justice to summon the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.PC to
face the trial along with the co-accused.
16. Accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable
in the eye of law. Hence, it is set aside allowing the present
revision petition.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
ravishankar/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 16.07.2025
Transmission Date 16.07.2025
