IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18402 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2021 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani ======================================================

Nikesh Jha, Male aged about 30 years Son of Ashok Jha resident of village-

Genhua Beria, P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ashutosh Kumar Jha, Male aged about 31 years son of Vijaykant Jha resident of village- Genjua Beria, P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Sinha, Advocate Mr. Aarsh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Ravi Kant Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 20-11-2025 Heard Mr. Rajesh Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred application under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jhanjharpur in Phulparas P.S. Case No. 200 of 2021 by which, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner along with five other accused persons, had allegedly assaulted the informant causing injury on the vital part of the body including head injury. Specific allegation against the petitioner apart from having assaulted the informant along with other accused persons, is also that he had snatched a sum of rupees twenty thousand from the pocket of the informant. The FIR was lodged under Sections 341, 323, 308, 379 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, however, the charge-sheet was submitted on 31.08.2021 under Sections 341, 323, 308 and

504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that from bare perusal of the FIR, it becomes apparent that allegation against the petitioner is specific that he had allegedly snatched a sum of rupees twenty thousand from the pocket of the informant, however, the police has found it untrue in its supervision report, as well as, in the final form and, as such, charge-sheet was not submitted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. In this regard, he submitted that a specific statement has been made in paragraph no. 12 of the present application. He further submitted that petitioner is an employee of Indian Railways and as a result of malicious and vexatious allegations, he will be unnecessary harassed in absence of any material or evidence collected against him in course of investigation.

5. Learned counsel submitted that in such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of learned trial Court, insofar as, taking of the cognizance. Learned counsel has relied upon the principle laid down by the Apex Court in respect of exercise of jurisdiction by the concerned Court under Section 227 Cr.P.C., in the case of State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors. reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 and in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135

6. Per contra, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that learned District Court has considered each and every aspect including the materials available on record, therefore, interfering with the trial at this stage is unwarranted. The contention of the petitioner that he ought to be discharged, has rightly been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jhanjharpur in exercise of power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. Heard the parties.

8. The question arises before this Court, as to whether, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner?

9. Record reveals that allegations alleged in the FIR are under Sections 341, 323, 308, 3