[ad_1]
Patna High Court – Orders
Rahul Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 15 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.461 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2020 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District-
Vaishali
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Son of Mahesh Paswan R/O Villl.- Mustufapur Harsher,
Mustafapur, P.S.- Goraul, Dist.- Vaishali.
I
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Patna
2. Jitendra Kumar Pandey Son of Late Shambhu Pandit @ Shambhu Pandey
R/O Villl.- Mustufapur Harsher, Mustafapur, P.S.- Goraul, Dist.- Vaishali.
3. Ashwini Kumar Pandey Son of Late Shambhu Pandit @ Shambhu Pandey
R/O Villl.- Mustufapur Harsher, Mustafapur, P.S.- Goraul, Dist.- Vaishali.
4. Ravindra Kumar Pandey Son of Umashankar Pandey R/O Villl.- Mustufapur
Harsher, Mustafapur, P.S.- Goraul, Dist.- Vaishali.
5. Sanjeet Pandey Son of Umakant Pandey R/O Villl.- Mustufapur Harsher,
Mustafapur, P.S.- Goraul, Dist.- Vaishali.
6. Umakant Pandey Son of Late Vishundev Pandey R/O Villl.- Mustufapur
Harsher, Mustafapur, P.S.- Goraul, Dist.- Vaishali.
7. Umashankar Pandey Son of Late Vishundev Pandey R/O Villl.- Mustufapur
Harsher, Mustafapur, P.S.- Goraul, Dist.- Vaishali.
8. Santosh Kumar Tiwary @ Mantosh Kumar Tiwary Son of Late Yogendra
Tiwary R/O Villl.- Mustufapur Harsher, Mustafapur, P.S.- Goraul, Dist.-
Vaishali.
9. Subodh Kumar Pandey Son of Harikant Pandey R/O Villl.- Mustufapur
Harsher, Mustafapur, P.S.- Goraul, Dist.- Vaishali.
10. Shubham Kumar Pandey Son of Sujeet Kumar Pandey R/O Villl.-
Mustufapur Harsher, Mustafapur, P.S.- Goraul, Dist.- Vaishali.
11. Ravi Ranjan Kumar Pandey Son of Ashwini Kumar Pandey R/O Villl.-
Mustufapur Harsher, Mustafapur, P.S.- Goraul, Dist.- Vaishali.
12. Feku Pandey Son of Late Ramnaresh Pandey R/O Villl.- Mustufapur
Harsher, Mustafapur, P.S.- Goraul, Dist.- Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravish Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Ravish Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Keertika Sakshi, Advocate
For the State : Md. Matloob Rab, APP
For the O.P.s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Samir Kumar, Advocate
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.461 of 2024(5) dt.15-07-2025
2/5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
5 15-07-2025
On 04th July 2020, one Nisha Kumari, daughter of
O.P. No. 3, namely, Ashwini Kumar Pandey was missing and it
was alleged that she was kidnapped by the petitioner, namely,
Rahul Kumar along with Indresh Paswan. Over the said incident
of kidnapping, it was alleged by the present petitioner (Rahul
Kumar) that he was called by the opposite parties, 12 in
numbers on 04.07.2020 to their house and the accused persons
assaulted them as well as abused him in the name of the cast
which offends Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The complaint was lodged on 11th July 2020. Since there was an
allegation under Section 3 of the SC/ST(Prevention of
Atrocities), Act, 1989. The act was transferred to the learned
Special Judge SC/ST Act, Vaishali at Hajipur. The learned
Special Judge fixed the date of examination of the witnesses on
behalf of the complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC on 20 th
March, 2021. On that date only, the complainant was examined.
On the basis of the evidence of the complainant, he did not issue
process against the accused. He went on recording evidence of
five more witnesses on 31st March 2021, 02nd February 2022,
10th March 2022, 23rd June 2022 and 25th August 2022. Thus, if
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.461 of 2024(5) dt.15-07-2025
3/5
this Court holds that the evidence of AW-1 to AW-5 was
recorded on the basis of provisions contained in Section 202 of
the CrPC, such inquiry was done by the learned Special Judge,
for a period of about three years. After conclusion of inquiry on
25th August 2022, he did not pass any order. He passed the order
refusing to take cognizance and postponement of issue of
process under Section 203 of the CrPC on 19th March 2024.
Thus, the learned special Judge took about four years to
conclude an initial inquiry and postponement of process.
2. Sine quo non of criminal administration of justice is
speedy disposal to preserve right to life. If both the
complainants and accused persons depend on the mercy of the
courts after filing of a complaint and wait for four years to see
the ultimate fate of such complaint, it is a perversity of justice
delivery system for which the concerned Judge should face
appropriate action.
3. However, this Court proposes that in all the
complaint cases, filed before the magistrates or the Special
Judges as the case may be, initial inquiry on S.A. and under
Section 202 of the CrPC are required to be concluded within
one month from the date of registration of the complaint, if such
order is violated, it would amount to criminal contempt and the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.461 of 2024(5) dt.15-07-2025
4/5
erring Magistrates and Judges would be liable to face such
criminal contempt.
4. Let a copy of this order be sent to all the
Magistrates and the learned Special Judges through the
Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Patna. Let a
copy of this order be also sent to the Director, Bihar Judicial
Academy for information amongst the learned Magistrates and
Special Judges.
5. Now comes the merit of the case. The petitioner
filed an complaint on 11th July 2020, stating, inter alia that on
04th July 2020, on the issue of kidnapping of a girl of Ashwini
Kumar Pandey. The accused persons called him to their house.
There, he was assaulted and abused by the accused persons in
the name of his caste. The petitioner has arraigned 12 persons as
accused/opposite parties. From the Inquiry Report, prepared on
06th July 2020, i.e., two days after lodged incident, the medical
officer only found a swelling on occipital region of the
petitioner. It is surprising to note as to how 12 persons made one
assault on the occipital region of the petition. Secondly, it is not
in dispute that the petitioner was allegedly abused in the name
of his caste inside the house of O.P. No. 3. Therefore, the place
of occurrence is not within the public view and the allegation of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.461 of 2024(5) dt.15-07-2025
5/5
offence under Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not arise.
6. On perusal of the statement on solemn affirmation
of the complaint and evidence on oath of other witnesses, this
Court finds that there are materials against the respondents no. 2
to 12 for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of the
IPC.
7. In view of this finding by this Court, the order of
the learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST Act-cum-Additional
Sessions Judge, dated 19.03.2024 is set aside.
8. Further, learned Special Judge is directed to pass an
order in the light of the observation made by this Court
hereinabove and transmit the case to the Court of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur at Vaishali.
9. The instant revision is thus disposed of.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Suraj Dubey/-
U T
[ad_2]
Source link