Patna High Court – Orders
Raman Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 20 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55987 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-297 Year-2009 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul
======================================================
RAMAN KUMAR SINGH SON OF MAHNAND PRASAD SINGH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PATORI, P.S. BIHRA, DISTRICT- SAHARSA
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar BIHAR
2. RINKI KUMARI WIFE OF RAMAN KUMAR SINGH DAUGHTER OF
SRI BHAWAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PARSARMA, P.S.
AND DISTRICT- SUPAUL
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Bhola Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh
For the State : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 20-03-2025
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
State and the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.
2. The present application has been preferred by the
petitioner-husband under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) for quashing the
impugned order dated 10.08.2021 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 97 of
2017. The present case emanates from Supaul P.S. Case No.
297/2009 registered under sections 323, 498A read with section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The prosecution story relevant for the purpose of
the present application in brief is that, the informant-wife (O.P.
no.2 herein), Rinku Kumari (Opposite Party no.2) had filed a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55987 of 2021(3) dt.20-03-2025
2/14
written complaint before the police on 14.10.2009. The
informant had stated therein that she was married to the
petitioner around four years therefrom according to the Hindu
rites and rituals which was solemnized at the house of the father
of the informant. The informant has further stated that in her
marriage with the present petitioner, her father had spent
according to his capacity and gifted jewelry, clothes, utensils,
items of furniture etc. and the father of the informant had also
gifted gold necklace chain, ring, motorcycle and clothes to the
petitioner-husband. The informant next states in the written
application to the police that after her marriage she went to stay
at her matrimonial house at Panchgachiya and thereafter she
was blessed with a son from the wedlock who was aged two
years at the time of the informant making the aforesaid
complaint. The informant alleges that for about one and a half
years, her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, her three
sisters-in-law and her nandosi had conspired together to
demanded rupees two lakhs from her father as dowry. It is
further alleged that when the informant conveyed the inability
of her father to fulfil their demands, the above-named persons
started to torture the informant by beating her, asking her to
leave her matrimonial house, stop her from eating and even
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55987 of 2021(3) dt.20-03-2025
3/14
avoided medical treatment to the informant when she fell ill. It
is stated that upon learning about the mistreatment of his
daughter, the father came to mediate whereupon the in-laws
maintained cordial relations for some time. The informant next
alleges that on 14.10.2009 at around 05:00 PM, the above-
named persons started torturing and threatening the informant
and asked the informant to leave her matrimonial house. It is
alleged that when the informant resisted, the above-named
persons started to beat the informant and the mother-in-law
handed over kerosene oil to the accused Anjali Kumari and the
said accused Anjali Kumari poured the kerosene oil on the
informant and accused Gudiya Kumari started to light the match
stick with an intention to ignite fire. It is stated that in the
meanwhile neighbours assembled and snatched the lighted
matchstick which saved the life of the informant. It is thereafter
alleged that the informant was thrown out of her matrimonial
house. It is furthermore alleged that when the informant
demanded the jewelry, clothes etc. gifted by her father during
marriage, her husband and father-in-law threatened to kill the
informant. The informant lastly stated that upon being thrown
out of her matrimonial house the informant along with her child
reached the house of her father and thereafter informed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55987 of 2021(3) dt.20-03-2025
4/14
jurisdictional police.
4. Based upon the written complaint, Supaul P.S. Case
297 of 2009 was registered on 14.10.2009 was registered under
sections 498A, 323 read with section 34 of the IPC and sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Upon investigation the
police submitted charge sheet and the learned Court vide order
dated 25.07.2011 took cognizance against all seven accused
persons under the aforesaid sections.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner-husband
that the aforesaid order taking cognizance was challenged
before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Cr. Rev.
47 of 2011 which came to be dismissed vide order dated
23.09.2011 and the order taking cognizance was affirmed.
Thereafter the order of dismissal dated 23.09.2011 passed in Cr.
Rev. 47 of 2011 was challenged before this Court in Cr. Misc.
44953 of 2011 which was allowed vide order dated 20.03.2015,
after the aforesaid application was withdrawn qua the petitioner-
husband and the application was allowed by this Court with
regard to the other co-accused persons.
6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
subsequently the petitioner-husband preferred a discharge
application, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2017
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55987 of 2021(3) dt.20-03-2025
5/14
and the learned Court had ordered to proceed with framing of
charge. Thereafter the petitioner-husband aggrieved from the
aforesaid order of dismissal on his discharge petition, preferred
a Cr. Rev. 97/2017 which also came to be dismissed vide
impugned order dated 10.08.2021.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that during the course of investigation the
Investigating Officer had found that the place of occurrence was
the nahihar (the paternal home of the informant), i.e., village
Parsarna in District Supaul whereas as per the statement made in
the F.I.R the alleged occurrence took place at the matrimonial
home of the informant at village Patori, district Saharsa. Further
it has been submitted that there is no question of causing any
bodily injury to the opposite party no. 2 or even attempt thereof.
Furthermore, it has been submitted that there has been no direct
evidence against the family members of the petitioner and
considering this very fact, this Court had quashed the order
taking cognizance with regard to the other co-accused persons.
Therefore, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the present
case has been instituted with oblique motive against the
petitioner-husband.
8. The learned Senior Counsel has emphasized that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55987 of 2021(3) dt.20-03-2025
6/14
since the petitioner-husband had preferred a Matrimonial Case
bearing no. 120 of 2008 on 15.10.2008 before Family Court,
Saharsa against the opposite party no. 2 under section 13(1) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, therefore in order to perfect her legal
defence for the aforementioned matrimonial case the opposite
party no.2 has preferred this instant criminal case. It has further
been emphasized by the learned Senior Counsel that the very
fact of pendency of the aforesaid matrimonial case before the
Family Court, Saharsa would amply illustrate that the
informant/opposite party no.2 was in fact not residing at her
matrimonial house was actually at her paternal house (naihar).
It is vehemently argued that the Courts below have failed to
appreciate that there is an ongoing matrimonial dispute pending
before the Family Court, Saharsa and also that the opposite
party no.2 was not living with her husband at her matrimonial
house during the date of alleged occurrence, further the
informant has also failed to produce any injury report in support
of her allegations. It has also been pointed to this Court that as
per the allegations, kerosene oil was poured, however no
kerosene oil poured clothes were produced before the
investigating officer. It has been submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel that putting the petitioner through the rigors of criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55987 of 2021(3) dt.20-03-2025
7/14
trial would amount to abuse of the process of law and that the
present case is pending at the stage of framing of charge. It has
lastly been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no offence
against the petitioner has been made out.
9. Heard the parties and perused material available on
record including the case diary.
10. The present case is pending at the framing of
charge stage. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State
through Deputy Superintendent of Police vs. R. Soundirarasu
etc. reported as (2023) 6 SCC 768 has held as follows:
50. The procedure for trial of warrant
cases by Magistrate is provided for under Chapter XIX
of the CrPC and Sections 239 and 240 resply relate to
discharge and framing of charge.
51. The primary consideration at the stage
of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima
facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of
materials on record is not to be gone into.
52…………
53. The aforestated Sections indicate that
the CrPC contemplates discharge of the accused by the
Court of Sessions under Section 227 in a case triable
by it, cases instituted upon a police report are covered
by Section 239 and cases instituted otherwise than on a
police report are dealt with in Section 245. The
three Sections contain somewhat different provisions in
regard to discharge of the accused. As per Section 227,
the trial judge is required to discharge the accused if
“the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused”. The
obligation to discharge the accused under
Section 239 arises when “the Magistrate
considers the charge against the accused to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55987 of 2021(3) dt.20-03-2025
8/14groundless”. The power to discharge under
Section 245(1) is exercisable when “the
Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded,
that no case against the accused has been made out
which, if unrebutted would warrant his conviction”.
Sections 227 and 239 resply provide for
discharge being made before the recording of
evidence and the consideration as to whether
the charge has to be framed or not is required to be
made on the basis of the record of the case, including
the documents and oral hearing of the accused and
the prosecution or the police report, the
documents sent along with it and examination of the
accused and after affording an opportunity to the
parties to be heard. On the other hand, the stage for
discharge under Section 245 is reached only after the
evidence referred to in Section 244 has been taken.
54. Despite the slight variation in the
provisions with regard to discharge under the three
pairs of Sections referred to above, the settled legal
position is that the stage of framing of charge under
either of these three situations, is a preliminary one
and the test of “prima facie” case has to be applied —
if the trial court is satisfied that a prima facie case is
made out, charge has to be framed.
55. The nature of evaluation to be made by
the court at the stage of framing of charge came up for
consideration of this Court in Onkar Nath Mishra
and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another, (2008) 2 SCC 561, and referring to its earlier
decisions in the State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath
Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659, and the State of M.P. v.
Mohanlal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338, it was held that at
that stage, the Court has to form a presumptive opinion
as to the existence of the factual ingredients
constituting the offence alleged and it is not
expected to go deep into the probative value of
the materials on record. The relevant
observations made in the judgment are as follows:
“11. It is trite that at the stage of
framing of charge the court is required to
evaluate the material and documents on record
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55987 of 2021(3) dt.20-03-2025
9/14with a view to finding out if the facts emerging
therefrom, taken at their face value,
disclosed the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. At that stage,
the court is not expected to go deep into the
probative value of the material on record. What
needs to be considered is whether there
is a ground for presuming that the
offence has been committed and not a ground
for convicting the accused has been made out.
At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on
material which leads the court to form a
presumptive opinion as to the existence of the
factual ingredients constituting the offence
alleged would justify the framing of charge
against the accused in respect of the commission
of that offence.”
56. Then again in the case of Som Nath
Thapa (supra), a three- Judge Bench of this Court,
after noting the three pairs of Sections i.e. (i) Sections
227 and 228 resply in so far as the sessions trial is
concerned; (ii) Sections 239 and 240 resply relatable
to the trial of warrant cases; and (iii) Sections 245(1)
and (2) qua the trial of summons cases, which dealt
with the question of framing of charge or discharge,
stated thus: (SCC p. 671, para 32).
“32…if on the basis of materials on record, a
court could come to the conclusion that
commission of the offence is a probable
consequence, a case for framing of charge
exists. To put it differently, if the court were to
think that the accused might have committed the
offence it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be that
the accused has committed the offence. It is
apparent that at the stage of framing of a
charge, probative value of the materials on
record cannot be gone into; the materials
brought on record by the prosecution has to be
accepted as true at that stage.”
57. In a later decision in Mohanlal Soni (supra),
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55987 of 2021(3) dt.20-03-2025
10/14
this Court, referring to several of its previous
decisions, held that: (SCC p. 342, para 7) “7. The
crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of framing
charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. The court is not required to appreciate
evidence to conclude whether the materials produced
are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.”
58. Reiterating a similar view in Sheoraj Singh
Ahlawat and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another, (2013) 11 SCC 476, it was observed by this
Court that while framing charges the court is required
to evaluate the materials and documents on record to
decide whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at
their face value would disclose existence of ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court
is not required to go deep into the probative value of
the materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether
there is a ground for presuming that the accused had
committed the offence and it is not required to evaluate
sufficiency of evidence to convict the accused. It was
held that the Court at this stage cannot speculate into
the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations and
contradictions & inconsistencies in the statement of
witnesses cannot be looked into at the stage of
discharge.
59. In the context of trial of a warrant case,
instituted on a police report, the provisions for
discharge are to be governed as per the terms of
Section 239 which provide that a direction for
discharge can be made only for reasons to be recorded
by the court where it considers the charge against the
accused to be groundless. It would, therefore, follow
that as per the provisions under Section 239
what needs to be considered is whether there is a
ground for presuming that the offence has been
committed and not that a ground for convicting the
accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong
suspicion founded on material which leads the Court to
form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the
factual ingredients constituting the offences alleged
would justify the framing of charge against the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55987 of 2021(3) dt.20-03-2025
11/14
in respect of that offence, and it is only in a case where
the Magistrate considers the charge to be groundless,
he is to discharge the accused after recording his
reasons for doing so.
60. Section 239 envisages a careful and objective
consideration of the question whether the charge
against the accused is groundless or whether there is
ground for presuming that he has committed an
offence. What Section 239 prescribes is not, therefore,
an empty or routine formality. It is a valuable provision
to the advantage of the accused, and its breach is not
permissible under the law. But if the Judge, upon
considering the record, including the examination, if
any, and the hearing, is of the opinion that there is
“ground for presuming” that the accused has
committed the offence triable under the chapter, he is
required by Section 240 to frame in writing a charge
against the accused. The order for the framing of the
charge is also not an empty or routine formality. It is of
a far-reaching nature, and it amounts to a decision that
the accused is not entitled to discharge under Section
239, that there is, on the other hand, ground for
presuming that he has committed an offence triable
under Chapter XIX and that he should be called upon
to plead guilty to it and be convicted and sentenced on
that plea, or face the trial. (See :V.C. Shukla v.
State through CBI, AIR 1980 SC 962).
61. Section 239 of the CrPC lays down that if the
Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to
be groundless, he shall discharge the accused. The
word ‘groundless’, in our opinion, means that there
must be no ground for presuming that the accused has
committed the offence. The word ‘groundless’ used
in Section 239 of the CrPC means that the materials
placed before the Court do not make out or are not
sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the
accused.
62. The learned author Shri Sarkar in his Criminal
P.C., 5th Edition, on page 427, has opined as:-
“The provision is the same as in S. 227, the only
difference being that the Magistrate may
examine the accused, if necessary, of also S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55987 of 2021(3) dt.20-03-2025
12/14
245. The Magistrate shall discharge the accused
recording reasons, if after (i) considering the
police report and documents mentioned in S.
173; (ii) examining the accused, if necessary
and (iii) hearing the arguments of both sides he
thinks the charge against him to be groundless,
i.e., either there is no legal evidence or that the
facts do not make out any offence at all.”
63. In short, it means that if no prima facie case
regarding the commission of any offence is made out,
it would amount to a charge being groundless.
64…….
65. Thus the word ‘groundless’, as interpreted by
this Court, means that there is no ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an
offence.
66……..
67………
68………
69. The real test for determining whether the charge
should be considered groundless under Section 239 of
the CrPC is that whether the materials are such that
even if unrebutted make out no case whatsoever, the
accused should be discharged under Section 239 of
the CrPC. The trial court will have to consider,
whether the materials relied upon by the prosecution
against the applicant herein for the purpose of
framing of the charge, if unrebutted, make out any
case at all.
70…..
71……
72. The ambit and scope of exercise of power
under Sections 239 and 240 of the CrPC, are therefore
fairly well settled. The obligation to discharge the
accused under Section 239 arises when the Magistrate
considers the charge against the accused to be
“groundless”. The Section mandates that the
Magistrate shall discharge the accused recording
reasons, if after (i) considering the police report and
the documents sent with it under Section 173, (ii)
examining the accused, if necessary, and (iii) giving the
prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55987 of 2021(3) dt.20-03-2025
13/14
heard, he considers the charge against the accused to
be groundless, i.e., either there is no legal evidence or
that the facts are such that no offence is made out at
all. No detailed evaluation of the materials or
meticulous consideration of the possible defences need
be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of
weighing materials in golden scales is to be
undertaken at this stage – the only consideration at the
stage of Section 239/240 is as to whether the
allegation/charge is groundless.
73. This would not be the stage for weighing the pros
and cons of all the implications of the materials, nor
for sifting the materials placed by the prosecution- the
exercise at this stage is to be confined to considering
the police report and the documents to decide whether
the allegations against the accused can be said to be
“groundless” (emphasis applied).
11. From the perusal of the records of the case and
more particularly from the statement of the victim (opposite
party no.2) in my opinion there are prima facie sufficient
material for framing of charges.
12. I have also perused the case diary of the
investigation and from paragraph No. 2 and 3 of the case diary
which contains the restatement of the complainant together with
the statements of the mother of the complinant (paragraph No.
11), the uncle of the complainant (paragraph No. 12) and the
Mukhiya (paragraph No. 13) have all supported the allegations
levelled in the complaint petition. The Court could not conduct a
mini-trial to discern the veracity of the incriminating materials
or the defence of the accused at this stage. Since there are triable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55987 of 2021(3) dt.20-03-2025
14/14
issues involved the charges levelled against the accused cannot
be termed as groundless so as to warrant interference by this
Court. The Court could not thread bare evaluate the varacity
sams proper trial.
13. The Revisional Court was therefore correct in not
interferring with the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the
S.D.J.M., Supaul dismissing the application under Section 239
of the Cr. P.C. preferred by the petitioner.
14. I find no illegality or error in the impugned order,
therfore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and
for the foregoing discussions, this application is dismissed.
15. The S.D.J.M, Supaul is hereby directed to proceed
with the trial and conclude the same at the earliest possible time.
The S.D.J.M, Supaul is further directed to submit a report after
six months with regard to the stage of the trial.
16. Needless to state that the petitioner will cooperate
in the trial wherein the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all
grounds in his defence.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
U T