Patna High Court
Navin Kumar Sinha @ Navin Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 17 July, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21911 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2014 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Navin Kumar Sinha @ Navin Kumar, son of Kameshwar Prasad, resident of
village Jahana, P.S. Bind, District Nalanda, at present Bishunpur, P.O. B.
Polytechnic near Durga Mandir, Krishnanagar Marg, Bishanpur, P.S. and Dis-
trict Dhanbad Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Anjani Ranjan son of Kaushalendra Kumar resident of village Noawan, P.S.
Asthawan, District Nalanda at present mohalla Shivpuri as renter in the
house of Rana Pratap son of Chaman Mahto, P.S. Laheri, District Nalanda.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur
Ms. Babita Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 17-07-2025
The present application has been preferred by the
petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short,
'Cr.P.C') assailing the order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the
learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif,
in Sessions Trial No.533 of 2016, in connection with Laheri P.S.
34 of 2014, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under
section 228 for discharge was rejected.
2. In this case, the petitioner has moved an
interlocutory application no.01 of 2024 praying for amendment
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21911 of 2017 dt.17-07-2025
2/11
in the prayer portion of the present petition, by which the entire
proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 553/2016, arising out of
Laheri P.S. 34 of 2014 has been challenged. A coordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 06.02.2025 has allowed the
aforesaid interlocutory application.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the
informant-Anjani Ranjan gave his written complaint to the
Officer-In-charge of Laheri Police Station stating therein that his
sister namely, Priyanka Kumari, aged about 22 years, was living
as a tenant in the house of one Rana Pratap and was pursuing
her studies. On 06.02.2014 at about 02.00 P.M. in the afternoon
the elder sister of the informant namely, Nutan Devi, informed
him about the death of his sister, on which he along with his
father came to the rented house and saw his sister Priyanka
Kumari hanging by the neck from the ceiling fan with a dupatta.
It is further stated that in November, 2013, the marriage of the
deceased sister of the informant was finalized with one Navin
Kumar- the petitioner. It is further stated that, after finalization
of marriage, the deceased and the petitioner were in contact with
each other and also started meeting frequently. The informant
alleges that all of a sudden on 30.01.2014 the accused-petitioner,
Navin Kumar, refused to marry the deceased and as a result of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21911 of 2017 dt.17-07-2025
3/11
which, his sister committed suicide.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan,
Laheri P.S. Case 34 of 2014 was registered on 06.02.2014 under
section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the
police submitted the charge-sheet on 31.8.2015 under section
306 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The
Magistrate vide order dated 05.04.2016 took cognizance against
the petitioner under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for
trial. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application under
section 228 of Cr.P.C. for discharge, which was rejected vide
impugned order dated 30.03.2017.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that even assuming the entire allegation made in the
F.I.R to be true, yet no offence under section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. The learned
counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that evidently from the
reading of the F.I.R itself, it appears that the informant was not
present at the place of occurrence and the deceased was residing
in a rented house which did not belong to the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that even as per the version of the F.I.R, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21911 of 2017 dt.17-07-2025
4/11
petitioner had allegedly refused to solemnize the marriage in the
month of January 2014, i.e., on 30.01.2014, whereas the alleged
occurrence of suicide took place on only 06.02.2014 and not
immediately after the alleged so-called refusal by the petitioner.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that
even as per the version of the F.I.R there is no proximity
between the so-called alleged refusal and the alleged suicide.
Further it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that even
assuming that the petitioner had refused to solemnize the
marriage, that in itself would not amount to an offence under
section 306 of the Indian Penal Code since it would not be
covered under the definition of abatement of suicide. The
learned counsel has further advanced his argument by stating
that it is not ordinarily expected that a mere refusal to marry
would result in suicide and therefore the offence of abatement is
not attracted.
7. It is thereafter submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the informant himself has stated
that he has strong belief that due to refusal of marriage, his
sister allegedly committed suicide and this itself goes to show
that he only raised suspicion. During the course of the
investigation, the father, mother and elder sister of the deceased
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21911 of 2017 dt.17-07-2025
5/11
have allegedly stated inter alia that they have admitted that the
deceased used to visit the petitioner and when the petitioner
refused to perform the marriage, the deceased committed
suicide.
8. It has been argued that during investigation it
has come that the deceased had certain conversation with her
own family members which is preserved in her mobile, which
will raise suspicion against her own family members.
9. It has also been argued that from the Police
paper which has been supplied to the petitioner, it is evident that
there is statement of one Vijay Prasad, who has allegedly stated
that on several occasions the marriage of the deceased was
discussed but the same never materialized and due to the said
reason, earlier also the deceased tried to commit suicide by
jumping into a well but was saved and on another occasion, she
tried to commit suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil on her but
again she was saved. When the marriage with the petitioner was
finalized, the family members of the petitioner enquired about
the family of the deceased and they came to know that the
family members of the deceased were having criminal
background and therefore, they refused to solemnize marriage
with the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21911 of 2017 dt.17-07-2025
6/11
10. Lastly, it has been argued by learned counsel
for the petitioner that if the allegation as leveled against the
petitioner is taken to be true even then it does not attract the
rigors of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed
by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda. In the counter
affidavit, the Superintendent of Police has supported the
prosecution case.
12. A supplementary counter affidavit has also
been filed by the S.H.O. of Laheri Police Station. Paragraph
nos. 2 to 6 of the aforesaid supplementary counter affidavit read
as under:-
"2. That at the very outset it is respectfully
stated and submitted that earlier a
consolidated counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the State of Bihar
through the Superintendent of Police
Nalanda. However the present statement
of facts is being submitted for filing
supplementary counter affidavit in the
light of direction given by this Hon'ble
Court vide order dated 27.02.2025 and
consequent order dated 18.03.2025, by
which the copy of suicide note of
deceased was directed to be filed.
3. That in pursuance to the aforesaid
direction the S.H.O. Lasheri P.S. Nalanda
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21911 of 2017 dt.17-07-2025
7/11
was directed to ensure production of
suicide note of the deceased in connection
with Laheri P.S. Case No.34/2014 vide
memo No.223, dated 21.03.2025 issued
by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda.
But it was informed by the S.H.O. Laheri
P.S. Nalanda that even on search the
suicide note of deceased could not be
traced out. It was further informed that
charge sheet bearing No.193/2025, dated
31.08.2015
has been submitted in the
Laheri P.S. Case No.34/2014, U/s 306 of
the I.P.C. against the petitioner and at
present case is pending for trial bearing
Session Trial No. 533/2016 in the Court
of learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Biharsharif, Nalanda. Thereafter, the
Public Prosecutor, Nalanda was
requested to make available a copy of
suicide note of the deceased vide memo
No.235, dated 21.03.2025. In response to
that a report vide letter No.113, dated
08.04.2025 has been submitted by the
Public Prosecutor, Nalanda mentioning
therein that in search of the required
suicide note of the deceased, record of
Session Trial No. 533/2016 (arising out of
Laheri P. S. Case No.34/2014) pending in
the court of learned XIIIth Addl. Sessions
Judge, Biharsharif, Nalanda was
thoroughly perused and found that on
24.01.2020, the suicide note of deceased
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21911 of 2017 dt.17-07-2025
was exhibited as exhibit-2 by P.W. 2
during his examination before the learned
Trial Court, but at present the said exhibit
is not available on record.
4. That it is humbly stated and submitted
that through the required suicide note of
deceased could not traced out, but the
contents of the suicide note of the
deceased has been mentioned by the 1.0.
of the case in Para-37 of the case diary.
5. That the suicide note was executed by the
trial court and it was put up with record,
but when the public Prosecutor, Bihar
Sharif was inquired from the Records that
has not been found in record.
So it may be call for by the trial court, so
that the Justice be done by my Lord.
6. That during investigation, the I.O. of this
case, in Paragraph No.37 of the case
diary it has been mentioned that due to
behaviour of the petitioner I am
committing suicide."
13. Considered the submissions of the parties.
14. From the facts of the case, there is no dispute
that the deceased had committed suicide but whether the
deceased had committed suicide on the instigation of the
petitioner or not is the question which has to be decided in this
case. The contention of the petitioner in the present is his
defence for which this Court would need to hold a mini-trial to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21911 of 2017 dt.17-07-2025
ascertain the veracity of his defence, which is impermissible in
law at this stage. Further, the allegations made in the F.I.R.
requires a trial. In these circumstances, I am of the view that no
case for quashing of the prosecution as against the petitioner is
made out.
15. It is well settled that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge, the concerned Court
must proceed on an assumption that the materials which have
been brought on record by the prosecution are true and
thereafter evaluate the aforesaid material in order to determine
whether the facts emerging from the materials taken on its face
value discloses the existence of the necessary ingredients of the
alleged offence. At the stage of considering an application for
discharge, the Court has to consider the fact whether there is a
ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and
not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made
out. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs.
Dilipsinh Kishoresinh Rao reported as (2023) 17 SCC 688.
16. In the present case, the materials which have
come during investigation are enough for putting the petitioner
on trial. In these circumstances, I do not find any error in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21911 of 2017 dt.17-07-2025
impugned order by which the discharge petition of the petitioner
has been rejected by the trial Court.
17. Considering the facts of the case and also the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishoresinh Rao (supra), I am
not inclined to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the
discharge petition of the petitioner.
18. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the
respondent - State in its counter affidavit has specifically
averred that the suicide note which was exhibited as Exhibit-2
during the trial is not traceable out and is missing, which is a
serious matter.
19. If that be so, the District Judge, Nalanda is
directed to enquire into the matter himself and if required will
register a separate case for disappearance of an important piece
of evidence and thereafter send an action taken report to this
Court. The aforesaid exercise must be completed within six
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
20. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, this application is dismissed.
21. Let a copy of this order be communicated to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21911 of 2017 dt.17-07-2025
the District Judge, Nalanda forthwith through FAX or e-mail for
its compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 17.04.2025
Uploading Date 17.07.2025
Transmission Date 17.07.2025
