Dismissed¶23

Rajeev Ranjan @ Rinku Ji v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC12 Feb 2026CR. MISC./1137/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; CR. MISC. No.1137 of 2022; decided 12-02-2026; Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J; quashing petition dismissed; complaint dismissed for default — complainant produced no witness/evidence before charge despite two years' opportunities (16.11.2013 to 18.04.2016); Complaint Case No. 2603(C)/2011 under Sections 323, 379, 406 IPC and Section 138 NI Act; revision (Criminal Revision Case No. 623 of 2016, order dt. 19.12.2019, Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Patna) dismissed; Magistrate's order dated 27.06.2016 not interfered with; no precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the record the Court found that, despite proper opportunities, the petitioner/complainant could not produce evidence; that is why the complaint petition was dismissed and, consequently, the revision was also dismissed. ¶21

Rajeev Ranjan @ Rinku Ji Vs The State of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1137 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2603 Year-2011 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna

¶3

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

¶4

RAJEEV RANJAN @ RINKU JI Son of Late Virendra Kumar Proprietor Shiv Cement Bhandar Resident of New Bypass Road, New Alkapuri, Police Station- Beur, District- Patna. At present residing at Azad Enclave, Flat No.302 (B), Van Vihar Colony, Police Station- Phulwari Sharif, DistrictPatna.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

RAVINDRA SINGH Son of Late Birja Singh Managing Partner of M/S Raj Construction, Resident of Village- Sheikhpura, Durga Ashram Gali, Police Station- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna.

¶9

DIWAKAR KUMAR Son of Late Arya Nand Singh M/S Raj Construction, Resident of Village- Sheikhpura, Durga Ashram Gali, Police Station- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna.

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gopal Govind Mishra, Adv. For the State : Ms.Madhuri Lata, APP For OP Nos. 2 and 3 : Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv. ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

5 12-02-2026

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for OP Nos. 2 and 3.

¶16

This is an application for quashing the order dated 19.12.2019 passed in Criminal Revision Case No. 623 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Patna, whereby and whereunder the learned court below dismissed the revision application, which was directed against the order dated

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1137 of 2022(5) dt.12-02-2026 2/3

¶18

27.06.2016 passed by the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2603(C)/2011 under Sections 323, 379 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶19

Despite giving opportunities for two years, the petitioner / complainant did not produce any witness before charge. Having no option, the learned Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 27.06.2016, passed in Complaint Case No. 2603 of 2011, dismissed the complaint petition.

¶20

The petitioner / complainant preferred Criminal Revision Case No. 623 of 2016 against that order which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Patna vide order dated 19.12.2019. While dismissing the criminal revision, the learned Sessions Judge has mentioned that from 16.11.2013 to 18.04.2016, the record was running for evidence before charge but the petitioner / complainant did not produce any evidence.

¶21

From perusal of the materials available with the record, it appears that despite proper opportunities given to the petitioner / complainant, he could not produce evidence and that is why the complaint petition was dismissed and consequently, the revision was also dismissed.

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1137 of 2022(5) dt.12-02-2026 3/3

¶23

I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

¶24

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶25

kundan/-

¶26

U T

Rajeev Ranjan @ Rinku Ji v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Ranjan @ Rinku Ji v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Singh @ Surendra Kumar @ Surendra Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar@ Rahul Kumar Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Yash Raj @ Yash Raj Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Neha Eqbal Vs the State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Vs The Union of India through Narcotics Department(Dri), Regional Office, Patna.

Ranbir Kumar Vs The State of Bihar