[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Brishan Patel @ Brishin Patel vs The State Of Bihar on 26 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39375 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2023 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Brishan Patel @ Brishin Patel son of Gulzar Prasad @ Gulzar Prasad Patel
R/o Village -Nagwa, P.S. -Patdhi Belsar, Dist.- Vaishali P/A- At gulzar
Mansion, Road No. 10, Rajendra Nagar, Ps- Kadam Kuan, Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Juli Kumari Daughter of Harendra Ray village- Basauli, Ps- Kudhani, Dist-
Muzaffarpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Shashi Priya, Advocate
Mr. Kaushal Kishor, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 26-02-2026
Heard Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Senior counsel
assisted by Mrs. Shashi Priya, learned counsel, for the petitioner
and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed by the
petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court for quashing the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special
Court POCSO (II), Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.56 of
20236 (Muzaffarpur) by which application for discharge filed by
the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
3. The facts giving rise to the present application are
to the effect that the complainant/ opposite party no.2 had met
with the petitioner, who is a political leader, in a public meeting
where she requested the petitioner for employment, upon which
the petitioner gave her his name and mobile number with
address and told her to meet him at Patna. Later on, the
complainant/opposite party no.2 received a phone call in which
she was told to meet the petitioner. When complainant /opposite
party no.2 reached the apartment of the petitioner, she found
some girls were also present at his flats. The petitioner told him
that he was in search of some talented girl to give a ticket to
contest the election from RJD. Thereafter, she was made to stay
in the same flat as the petitioner and in the night the petitioner
sexually abused her and, despite her cries and protests, made
physical relationship with the complainant. It is further alleged
that the petitioner frequently started sexually abusing her and on
protest, the petitioner blackmailed the complainant/opposite
party no.2 by showing her obscene pictures and video clips.
Anyhow, the complainant/opposite party no.2 managed to get
the pictures and video clip on her mobile phone and narrated the
whole incident to her family. It is further alleged that the
complainant and her family members were threatened to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
killed by the petitioner and thereafter the complainant/opposite
party no.2 went to the police station and lastly she filed a
complaint bearing Complaint Case No. 56 of 2023
(Muzaffarpur).
4. Thereafter, the complainant was examined on
solemn affirmation along with three inquiry witnesses, namely,
Ravi Prakash, Manjay Kumar and Vikash Kumar and thereafter
the learned Special Judge POCSO-II took cognizance for the
offences under Sections 6, 12, 14 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as well as under Sections 323,
341, 354(B), 420 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and issued
summons against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner filed an application under Section
227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge. The learned Court upon hearing
the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 rejected the application of the
petitioner for discharge vide impugned order dated 13.02.2025.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the learned Trial Court has passed the order taking
cognizance without perusal of the entire material and documents
on record, which will in fact enable the petitioner to be
discharged. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
falsely been implicated in this case, as he is 77 years old and a
very senior politician in the State of Bihar. It has next been
submitted that from perusal of the complaint, it would be
evident that neither in the complaint nor in her solemn
affirmation the complainant has stated any specific date and
month or year in which she was sexually abused rather a very
vague statement of the occurrence having started two years back
has been made.
7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that if the solemn affirmation of the complainant is taken into
account, even then no prima facie offence is being made out
against the petitioner. The three inquiry witnesses, who have
been examined in support of the complainant's case, have not
corroborated the version of the complainant. Learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner submits that the own brother of the
complainant, who stood as an inquiry witness No.2 has stated
the age of his sister, i.e., the complainant, to be 22 years, which
is contradictory to the statement of the complainant, who claims
herself to be a minor when the incident is said to have started,
while inquiry witness No.3 is admittedly not an eyewitness and
he has not stated any date of occurrence or time of the so-called
occurrence as alleged in the complaint.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, thus,
submits that on account of such evidence before the learned
Court, the order taking cognizance was a mechanical and
routine order passed without application of judicious mind,
however, at the stage of discharge, the learned Trial Court ought
to have been particular with the details of the complaint and the
evidence, which has come in support of the same and as stated
above, even if the said statements are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety, no prima facie offence is made
out against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that in
the entire complaint not a single date has been referred to
barring a sweeping statement that the first meeting was around
two years ago, which was a deliberate attempt to make out a
case under the POCSO Act as admittedly during filing of the
complaint the complainant was a major.
9. Learned Senior counsel has also drawn the
attention of this Court that a pendrive containing some video of
sexual exploitation of the opposite party no.2 is said to have
been there, submitted by the complainant, however, it has not
surfaced on record till the date of passing of the impugned order
rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioner.
10. Learned Senior counsel has pointed out that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
allegations of the complainant meeting the petitioner in a
political rally in the year 2021 are also falsified on account of
the fact that it was the period of COVID-19 and there was a
total prohibition of assembly of persons at one place and
therefore, the allegations of the opposite party no.2 meeting the
petitioner at such rally prima facie becomes false and therefore,
the entire complaint is vitiated because of malicious
prosecution.
11. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further
submits that in fact the present complaint case has been filed in
retaliation to the economic offence case being EO Case No. 17
of 2023 to save her skin from the said case, which was lodged
by the petitioner against the opposite party no.2. It has next been
submitted that the petitioner has been made a victim of a grave
conspiracy hatched by those persons who were involved and
had tried to blackmail the petitioner through various mobile
numbers, which has been mentioned in the Economic Offence
case registered by the petitioner. It has next been submitted that
after due deliberation and consultation with the persons who are
accused in the economic offence case the present complaint case
was filed on 24.11.2023, while the economic offence case was
registered on 17.11.2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
12. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has
stated that one of the mobile numbers is in the name of Arusi
(blackmailer) which was being used by the brother of the
complainant, while other mobile on which the demand of
ransom has been made is of the inquiry witnesses of the
complaint case.
13. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon a judgement rendered in the case of Panchananda
Jana vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr. passed by the
Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata wherein she has referred to the
paragraph 9 of the said judgment which is as under:
"Learned counsel has also placed
reliance of a decision in the case of Ganesh Orang
vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.1 to support CRA
248 of 2019 with CRAN 2 of 2021 (Old CRAN
2848 of 2019) 2025:CHC-AS:1589 his contention
that place, time and circumstances under which
alleged offence was committed by the petitioner are
the essential parameters to be required to establish
in order to prove even the prima facie prosecution
case and, in the instant case, vital contradictions
and inconsistencies are appearing on the face of
records and, in such a situation, the Investigating
Officer ought not to have been filed charge sheet
against the petitioner. Only on such ground, the
Revisional application can be allowed and charge
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
sheet should be quashed."
14. Learned Senior counsel, thus, submits that it was
on completely vague averments regarding meeting of the
opposite party no.2 with the petitioner at her village, without
any specific date of the sexual exploitation being made the
continuation of the criminal case would amount to the abuse of
the process of law and it can not be set into motion as a matter
of course and therefore, the petitioner should have been
discharged in such case where the sole motive was to blackmail
the petitioner and damage his reputation as a political leader and
therefore, the order impugned is fit to be set aside.
15. Learned APP for the State has vehemently
opposed the application of the petitioner and has submitted that
the complainant/opposite party no.2 has categorically stated that
she has been exploited by the petitioner on various occasions for
the last two years prior to the filing of the complaint case. It has
further been submitted that most of the arguments forwarded by
the learned Senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner is by way
of defence and therefore, at this juncture, the defence of the
petitioner cannot be looked into. It has next been submitted that
the scope of interference at the stage of discharge is very limited
and it is a well settled law that the Court is only to prima facie
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
examine whether a case is being made out on the basis of the
materials on record and the Court cannot examine the evidence
minutely in order to discharge the accused-petitioner, thereby
conducting a mini trial. It has, thus, been submitted that the
present application is misconceived and is fit to be dismissed.
16. Having heard the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State, this Court finds that
this was a complaint lodged by one Juli Kumar, who has stated
her age to be 19 years in the complaint and has also stated that
the occurrence started around two years ago and has been
continuing till date. The complainant has, though, not stated any
date but has given a very detailed description of how the
accused had called the opposite party no.2 to Patna and started
exploiting her sexually. The complaint contains the fact that the
petitioner had promised her a job and thereafter he forcibly
made physical relationship despite the fact that the complainant
kept on crying.
17. The complainant/opposite party no.2 further
disclosed that a video was also made containing explicit clips of
the opposite party no.2, which was shown to her and she was
blackmailed on that account with the threat that it would be
made viral if she opposed the move of the petitioner. It has also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
been alleged in the complaint that the complainant/opposite
party no.2 disclosed such a fact to her family and when her
father talked to the petitioner, he was threatened with dire
consequences. It has also been stated that the opposite party
no.2 had also gone to the police station, however, the police had
also asked her not to register the same and made her return, and
thereafter the complaint was filed.
18. From perusal of such complaint as also the
deposition of the inquiry witnesses, one thing is evident that it
has been alleged that the petitioner had sexually exploited the
complainant/opposite party no.2 and which also came to the
knowledge of the inquiry witnesses.
19. From perusal of the complaint and the deposition
of the inquiry witness, it is also apparent that serious allegations
of sexual exploitation have been levelled against the petitioner.
Moreover, from the records, it is clear that the complainant had
brought on record the proof of her date of birth, which is stated
to be 13.04.2004 and therefore, at the time of occurrence, she
was about 17 years of age and therefore, the points raised on
behalf of the petitioner that the victim was a major are not
tenable, as the occurrence is stated to be two years prior to the
filing of the complaint. This Court has found that the document
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
which was produced by the complainant was the mark sheet of
the matriculation examination and as per Section 94 of the
Juvenile Justice Board Act, 2015 this is a document which needs
to be considered while deciding the age of the victim.
20. As far as discharge of the petitioner on the ground
of vague and baseless allegations is concerned, I have already
observed hereinabove that there are explicit allegations of
sexual abuse against the petitioner on several occasions, which
has also been supported by the inquiry witnesses and even the
allegations levelled by the complainant that she was being
threatened by the petitioner is supported by the inquiry
witnesses, therefore, for the purposes of discharge, if these
allegations are taken into account, then there is enough material
on record for conducting a trial against the petitioner wherein
the defence of the petitioner shall be taken into account.
21. It is also a settled law that the determination of
age can only be done through trial after taking evidence and
therefore, any arguments contrary to the same cannot be looked
into at this stage. It is also a settled law that the allegations of
false implication on the ground of previous cases lodged against
certain persons can also not be looked into at the stage of
discharge. The documents produced by the accused, unless the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
same is impeachable so as to prove the innocence of the
accused, then only the said document cannot be taken into
account.
22. The contention raised by the learned Senior
counsel with regard to the lack of exact date and time of the
occurrence by the complainant/opposite party no.2 which has
not been stated either in complaint or in her solemn affirmation
statement, the same can also not demolish the entire prosecution
case at the threshold. This Court has seen that in many cases
involving sexual offences, particularly those against minors,
there might be some degree of variance or lack of precision on
the date and time and therefore, that in itself cannot be a ground
for discharge, especially when the allegations are otherwise
specific and consistent.
23. This Court finds that the defence taken by the
petitioner pertains to disputed questions of age, which cannot be
adjudicated in a process under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the
case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC, it has already been held that the
inherent jurisdiction of the Court is to be exercised sparingly
and with circumspection and moreover, the present case does
not fall within any of the categories which have been defined in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
the paragraph '102' of the said judgment warranting interference
by this Hon'ble Court.
24. One more fact which this Court finds is that the
complainant has not only alleged about sexual harassment at the
hands of the petitioner in her complaint, but even during her
solemn affirmation statement, she has categorically alleged
about the conduct of the petitioner with details as to how she
was physically abused and the petitioner had taken advantage of
her and had also prepared a video clip which the complainant
could lay her hand on. The statement is recorded under oath and
the said statement has the same sanctity which is of a statement
of victim made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C./183 of the
BNSS, which is taken as a sacrosanct until the same is
disbelieved after evidence in a full-fledged trial.
25. The present case is of a minor girl who has alleged
sexual exploitation at the hands of the petitioner and there is
video clip of one such sexual exploitation, the veracity of the
same can only be judged during the course of Trial and
therefore, discharging the petitioner at this stage merely relying
upon his defence would not be proper.
26. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds
that the learned Trial Court has considered the materials on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
record and has recorded cogent reasons for rejecting the
discharge petition and the said order does not suffer from any
legal illegality or jurisdictional error warranting any
interference.
27. In view of the aforesaid discussions made
hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient
material on record to proceed against the petitioner and
primarily the matters raised by the petitioner are by way of
defence, which can only be seen at the time of trial at an
appropriate stage.
28. Accordingly, the present application stands
dismissed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 19.02.2026
Uploading Date 27.02.2026
Transmission Date 27.02.2026
