Nawal Kishore Jha v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Feb 2025CR. APP (SJ)/491/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Search terms: Patna High Court; Criminal Appeal (SJ) 491/2024; Rajiv Roy; quashing of cognizance order; Madhubani; Basopatti P.S. Case 283/2021; G.R. 159/2021; SC/ST Act s.3(i)(r)(s)/3(2)(va); IPC ss. 341, 323, 354B, 504, 506; charge-sheet dated 15.02.2023; SDPO supervision note; case diary paras 25 and 38; complainant's notarized withdrawal affidavit; dismissal of appeal and interlocutory application. Useful to advocates weighing challenges to cognizance orders where investigation was officer-supervised and a complainant's affidavit of withdrawal is contested.

What did the court decide?

None; both Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 491 of 2024 and I.A. No. 01 of 2024 stand dismissed. ¶31-32

Nawal Kishore Jha Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.491 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2021 Thana- BASOPATTI District- Madhubani

¶3

====================================================== Nawal Kishore Jha S/O LATE MAHABIR JHA VILLAGEBHAGIRTHPATTI, PS. BASOPATTI, DIST. MADHUBANI.

¶4

... ... Appellant/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

VINA KUMARI W/O AMIT PASWAN VILLAGE- BHAGIRTHPATTI, PS. BASOPATTI, DIST. MADHUBANI.

¶8

... ... Respondent/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶10

4 13-02-2025 Heard Mr. Ratnakar Jha, learned counsel for the

¶11

appellant and Mr. Binay Krishna representing the State.

¶12

There is no representation of the informant though

¶13

certain names are there in the cause list.

¶14

The present appeal has been preferred:

¶15

for quashing the order dated 0206-2023 passed in connection with Baspatti P.S. Case No.283/2021, G.R.No. 159 of 2021 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1st Cum Special Judge, Madhubani, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to take cognizance of the offence/offences

¶16

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.491 of 2024(4) dt.13-02-2025 2/4

¶17

punishable under section 341,323,354B of Indian Penal Code and 3(i)(r)(s)/3(2) (va) SC/ST Act against the Appellant.

¶18

With the consent of the parties, the matter is being taken up for final hearing.

¶19

As per the prosecution story, the lady, respondent no. 2 alleged that she being the dealer of public distribution shop at Bhagirathpatti, Ward No. 19 was distributing grains when the accused came, broke her machine, the sale register was also torn, some amount taken. Upon objection, her husband was assaulted and when she tried to save him, was thrown on the ground. The caste name was also taken. Upon the accused having left the place, the husband was taken to Basopatti for treatment whereafter, the case.

¶20

The Police investigated the matter, the same was also supervised by Superior Officers and having found the case to be true, charge-sheet was submitted on 15.02.2023 under Sections 323, 341, 354(B), 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(i) (r)(s)/3(2) (va) SC/ST Act.

¶21

The learned Court thereafter took up the matter and vide an order dated 02.06.2023, having taken note of the materials on record as also the supervision note of the Sub-

¶22

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.491 of 2024(4) dt.13-02-2025 3/4

¶23

Divisional Officer in paragraph 25 of the case diary, took cognizance and issued summon to the appellant.

¶24

Aggrieved, the present appeal.

¶25

It is the case of the appellant that there is case and counter case, only to put pressure and to dilute the earlier case, the respondent no. 2 has resorted to the present case. He submits that though cognizance has been taken, no such occurrence took place. He further submits that subsequently, notary affidavit was given by the lady who wanted to withdraw the petition.

¶26

The State is represented by Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Spl. P.P. who opposes the prayer and submits that not only the Police found the case to be true, it has also been supervised by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer who in his supervision note has found sufficient materials to proceed in the case. It is only thereafter that the charge-sheet was submitted. To the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that a notarized public affidavit is there by the lady, he has taken this Court to paragraph 38 of the case diary to submit that the lady subsequently, withdrew the said petition alleging that she was forced to sign the dotted lines.

¶27