Patna High Court – Orders
Rajendra Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 23 June, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25532 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2005 Thana- NAUTAN District- Siwan
======================================================
Rajendra Prasad Son of Late Sheo Lal Prasad Resident of Pachlakhi, P.S.
Nautan, District - Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
12 23-06-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing the
order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Siwan in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No. 97
of 2005 by which the Court below after differing with the police
report, took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence
under Section 304B/34 of the IPC and Section ¾ of the DP Act.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that one Amit
Kumar in his written statement before the Police has stated that
his younger sister Poonam Devi aged about 24 years was
married to the son of the petitioner on 07.06.2005 as per Hindu
rites and tradition. It has been alleged that at the time of
marriage, a cheque amounting to Rs.80,000/- and cash
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25532 of 2016(12) dt.23-06-2025
2/5
Rs.45,000/- was given to Rajendra Prasad (Petitioner) and one
Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle. Later, during a visit on
06.09.2005, Poonam disclosed to her father that she was being
harassed by her in-laws–Madhuri Devi (mother-in-law), Rani
Kumari (Nanad), and Rajendra Prasad (father-in-law)–for
additional dowry including a TV, gas cylinder, and Rs. 25,000. It
has been further alleged that when his father asked for ‘Bidagri’
of his sister then Rajendra Prasad and Madhuri Devi forced him
out of the house. His father came back and narrated the entire
occurrence. It has been further stated that due to financial
problems they could not fulfill the demand. Thereafter, on
29.10.2005 the informant went to bring his sister but found his
sister lying dead on the ‘Palang’. The informant claimed that all
the accused persons had killed his sister by hanging her due to
non-fulfillment of dowry demand.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that after the investigation, police found no case against
Rajendra Prasad and Rani Kumari. Charges were established
only against Madhuri Devi and Rohit Kumar under Sections
306/412 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
However, the learned C.J.M., Siwan vide order dated
18.07.2012 has taken cognizance against the petitioner u/s
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25532 of 2016(12) dt.23-06-2025
3/5
304B/34 of the I.P.C. and 3/4 of the D.P. Act completely
ignoring the investigation as well as the settled preposition of
law on mere presumption and assumption. While taking
cognizance, the learned C.J.M. has taken the protest petition of
the informant into consideration and has also looked into the
case diary for taking cognizance which is impermissible in the
eyes of the law. He further submits that learned C.J.M. has given
much weightage to the supervision report which is not
sustainable in the eyes of the law. During the investigation
sufficient material was collected to demonstrate that the
deceased had committed suicide.
5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that during the investigation nothing came against the
petitioner and there is no material to connect the petitioner
either to murder or abetting. From the entire investigation it
appears that the deceased due to certain misgivings and illusions
ended her life which is apparent from the letters written by her
which are mentioned in Para-48 of the case diary as also in the
supervision note dated 03.04.2006. From the said letter it is
apparent that the deceased was disturbed due to certain
misgivings and was even contemplating ending her life but there
is no mention of any torture or demand of dowry or any type of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25532 of 2016(12) dt.23-06-2025
4/5
abetment. From the aforesaid letter it appears that the aforesaid
misgivings had arisen as the husband had left for Delhi after
seven days of the marriage. He further submits that the
petitioner was not aware of the order taking cognizance and as
such he did not take recourse to any further legal proceeding at
the earliest. It is further stated that no summons has ever been
served on the petitioner otherwise he would have availed the
remedy as available to him in law at the earliest.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that while passing the impugned order by which the learned
Magistrate has differed with the final form and has taken
cognizance. Though he has relied upon the materials collected
during the investigation but he has also considered the protest
petition filed by the petitioner and therefore the order taking
cognizance is bad in law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay Jha & Ors
vs. The State of Bihar & Anr reported as (2007) 1 PLJR 632.
8. Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned APP for the
State has supported the cognizance order and has submitted that
cognizance has rightly been taken on the basis of materials
collected during the investigation and there is no discussion by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25532 of 2016(12) dt.23-06-2025
5/5
the learned Magistrate of the protest petition.
9. I have considered the submissions of the parties.
10. The impugned order by which cognizance has
been taken by the learned Magistrate after differing with the
final form so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is a well
reasoned order and the same cannot be quashed merely because
the prosecution argued the protest petition. There is no
discussion with regard to the materials mentioned in the protest
petition and the Magistrate has only said that the protest petition
has also been argued.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the
view that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner i.e., Ajay Jha & Ors vs. The State of Bihar & Anr
(supra) is not applicable in the facts of this case. Accordingly,
this application is hereby dismissed with liberty to the petitioner
to raise all the grounds at the stage of framing of charge or at an
appropriate stage.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U