Dismissed¶28

Mohan Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Jul 2025CR. REV./694/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against dismissal of complaint under Section 203 CrPC; no prima facie case; statements of inquiry witnesses under Section 200 CrPC; absence of injury report despite alleged farsa-danda assault; complainant did not witness theft of tempo BR45P5359 dated 06.11.2021; admitted previous enmity; caste-name abuse; Complaint Case No. 02 of 2022; Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua; dismissed in limine at admission stage; no illegality or infirmity in impugned order; Jitendra Kumar, J.

What did the court decide?

There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 27.06.2022 dismissing the complaint. ¶27

Mohan Prasad Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Revision deserved admission against the order dismissing the petitioner's complaint under Section 203 Cr.PC, i.e., whether, on the complaint and the statements of the inquiry witnesses under Section 200 Cr.PC, a prima facie case was made out.

¶20

Court's answer

There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 27.06.2022 dismissing the complaint.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the statements of the inquiry witnesses, the complainant's allegations are not supported by any cogent and plausible evidence: although he alleged assault with farsa and danda, no injury report was annexed with the complaint.

¶26

Key takeaways

As per the complainant himself, he had not seen the accused persons/opposite parties steal his tempo.ratio¶26
It is the admitted case of the complainant that there was previous enmity between the complainant and the accused persons.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (High Court of Judicature at Patna, Criminal Revision No.694 of 2022, decided 10-07-2025, Jitendra Kumar, J.) directed against the order dated 27.06.2022 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua in Complaint Case No. 02 of 2022 (arising out of PS Case No.-2 of 2022, P.S. Bhabhu (Kaimur)), whereby the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.PC for want of a prima facie case. Complainant's case: his tempo bearing Registration No. BR45P5359 was stolen on 06.11.2021 by the accused persons; when he demanded its return he was abused by caste name and assaulted with farsa and danda. Heard only on the point of admission. Held, dismissing the revision petition in limine: the statements of the inquiry witnesses show the allegations are not supported by any cogent and plausible evidence - no injury report was annexed despite the assault allegation, the complainant admitted he had not seen the accused steal his tempo, and previous enmity between the parties was admitted. No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.694 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2022 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C District- Kaimur (Bhabua)

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Mohan Prasad, Son Of Begnath Ram, R/O Village- Deuriya, P.S.- Nuaon, Distt.- Kaimur at Bhabua

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar

¶8

Ramesh Kumar, Son Of Mahatim Singh, R/O Village- Bandipur, P.S.Ramgarh, Distt.- Kaimur (Bhabua)

¶9

Rajesh Singh, Son Of Mahatim Singh, R/O Village- Bandipur, P.S.Ramgarh, Distt.- Kaimur (Bhabua)

¶10

Mahatim Singh, Son Of Late Jodhan Singh, R/O Village- Bandipur, P.S.Ramgarh, Distt.- Kaimur (Bhabua)

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

======================================================

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Ram, Advocate For the State : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, APP ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶15

3 10-07-2025

¶16

The present Criminal Revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.06.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua in Complaint Case No. 02 of 2022, whereby learned Special Judge has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.PC, finding that no prima facie case is made out as per the materials on record.

¶17

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of Admission.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.694 of 2022(3) dt.10-07-2025 2/3

¶20

complaint filed by the petitioner has been erroneously dismissed by learned Special Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua under Section 203 Cr.PC. He further submits that as per the complaint and statements of the inquiry witnesses under Section 200 Cr.PC, a prima facie case is made out and despite sufficient materials, the complaint has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.PC.

¶21

4. I considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record.

¶22

5. A copy of the statements of the inquiry witnesses has been filed along with the petition, besides a copy of the complaint.

¶23

6. The case of the complainant is that his tempo bearing Registration No. BR45P5359 was stolen on 06.11.2021 and after inquiry, he came to know that the same was stolen by the accused persons/opposite parties. Hence, he went to the accused persons for demanding the tempo and then they promised that they would return. However, subsequently, when he went to the house of the accused persons for reminding them to return the tempo, he was abused by caste name and assaulted by farsa and danda , causing injury on his person.

¶24

7. From the perusal of the statements of the inquiry witnesses, it clearly transpires that the allegation of the

¶25

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.694 of 2022(3) dt.10-07-2025 3/3

¶26

complainant/petitioner is not supported by any cogent and plausible evidence. Despite allegation that he has been assaulted by farsa and danda , no injury report has been annexed with the complaint. Moreover, as per the complainant, he has not seen that the accused persons/opposite parties have stolen his tempo. Moreover, it is admitted case of the complainant that there is previous enmity between the complainant and the accused persons.

¶27

8. Hence, I find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

¶28

9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in

¶29

limine .

¶30

(Jitendra Kumar, J)

¶31

shoaib/-

¶32

U T