AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 11-08-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.
The present application was filed initially against the order dated 23.01.2021, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda, in Complaint Case No. 259(c) of 2017, whereby cognizance u/s 302, 201, 328 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’), had been taken differing from the final report filed in favour of the petitioners, treating the case to be ‘mistake of fact.’ Subsequently, by way of an I.A. No. 01 of 2025 the petitioners have challenged the order dated 02-08-2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hilsa, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 577 of 2023 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 259(c) of 2017), whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners u/s 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of the petitioners u/s 302, 201, 328 and 34 of the I.P.C has been rejected.
The brief facts leading to the impugned order emanates from a Complaint Case No. 259(c) of 2017 dated 18-05-2017, wherein it has been alleged that the complainant’s son, Krishnamurari Singh, was running Sai Nursing Home, Hilsa, in partnership with the petitioners and that a dispute had arisen between them on account of money transactions and the arrangement of the nursing home. It is further alleged that on 06.04.2017, Bharat Singh (petitioner no.2) and Rajiv Kumar @ Titu (petitioner no.3) came to the residence of the complainant and informed him that his son had consumed some poisonous substance and was unconscious. The informant thereafter went to the nursing home and came to know that his son had been taken to Shubh Shivam Hospital, Patna by petitioner nos. 2 and 3. According to the complaint, on 07.04.2017, after regaining consciousness, Krishnamurari Singh (deceased) allegedly disclosed that petitioners had made him consume a cold drink. In the meantime, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 allegedly asked petitioner no.1 to administer a poisonous injection to the deceased. Thereafter, petitioner no. 2 and 3 caught hold of hand of deceased and petitioner no.1 administered the said poisonous injection, following which he became unconscious. It is further alleged that when the complainant reached the hospital later that evening, he learnt that his son had died and that the accused persons had taken the dead body to Fatuha Ghat and were preparing to cremate it. The complainant further stated that when he insisted upon post-mortem examination, the accused persons threatened him and his family of dire consequences. Thereafter, the complainant approached the police authorities, but allegedly no action was taken, leading him to institute the present complaint.
On the basis of the facts narrated in the complaint petition the learned Magistrate directed for institution of a First Information Report (hereinafter referred as ‘FIR’) u/s 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C, whereupon Hilsa P.S. Case No.411 of 2017 dated 25.06.2017 got registered under Sections 302, 201, 328, r/w 34 IPC. After investigation, final form was submitted on 30-11-2017 in favour of the petitioners, however, cognizance was taken under aforementioned Sections of the IPC, differing from the said final form and after commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the petitioners filed the discharge petition u/s 227 of the Cr.P.C. which stood rejected by the impugned order dated 02-08-2025.
From a perusal of the record, it appears that the matter was fixed for framing of charges on 09-02-2026. However, the further proceedings before the Court concerned was stayed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 02-02-2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 40104 of 2022. As such, the status of the case is that the charges have not been framed yet.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the order taking cognizance as well as the impugned order rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioners suffers from non-application of judicial mind and the materials on record have not been considered in correct perspective. It is contended that the cognizance order is based merely on the basis of tower location of petitioner No. 1 but the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the fact that as per the investigation, the petitioner No.1 on the date of alleged occurrence was discharging his duty at Vardhman Institute of Medical Science, Pawapuri and has no concern with the said occurrence. Further, it has been submitted that even if the tower location of the petitioner No.1 is taken into consideration, it has no nexus with the alleged place of occurrence. However, the Court concerned failed to assign any specific reason for taking cognizance against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3.
It is next submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Court below has wrongly refused to discharge the petitioners as no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioners which gains strength from the fact that after investigation, the police proceeded to submit a final form in favour of the petitioners, considering the case to be a mistake of fact.
The learned Counsel also submitted that the Court concerned has erred in so far as it has not taken into consideration the material facts such as inordinate delay of 15 days in giving information about the alleged occurrence to the police for the first time, whereupon the Complaint Case No. 259 (c) of 2017 was filed on 18-05-2017 i.e., after a delay of about 42 days, and subsequently FIR was instituted against these petitioners. Moreover, the materials available on record discloses the unnatural conduct of the informant and his family members, in asmuch as, even though it has been alleged that the deceased had clearly stated that these petitioners were involved in the said occurrence, the informant and his son, leaving behind the deceased with the accused persons, went for making arrangement of money, and made no efforts to lodge any complaint against the accused persons.
Further submissions have been made stating that while petitioner no.1 is a qualified doctor, petitioner no.2 is working with an Auto finance company and petitioner no.3 is a businessman and as a matter of fact the deceased has himself consumed ‘sulphas’ and it was petitioner nos.2 and 3 who took him to the hospital for the treatment, as such, there could have been no motive to commit the said occurrence. It is also a fact that the dead body was cremated without any Post-Mortem being held and in absence of a post-mortem report, the cause of death can itself not be ascertained, further weakening the case of prosecution. Lastly, the learned counsel has submitted that there are material contradictions as to the tower location, statement of witnesses, etc which itself creates serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.
Per Contra, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the present application on the ground that the allegations made in the FIR along with the materials collected during the course of investigation constitutes an offence, as alleged, against the petitioners. Further, the learned counsels have submitted that the Court below while considering the discharge petition has considered different paragraphs of case dairy and other available materials and found sufficient materials to proceed with the trial against these petitioners. They have also submitted that at the stage of framing of charge or considering the discharge petition, the Court below has rightly refused to examine the evidence meticulously and keeping in view that no mini trial can be conducted at this stage, the impugned orders require no interference.
After having heard the rival contentions of the parties and having considered the impugned orders as also the materials on record, at this stage, the moot question which falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether there is sufficient material and ground for proceeding against the petitioners prosecuting them under Section 302, 201, 328 and 34 of the I.P.C.
Facts of the case no doubt disclose that the case arises out of a delayed complaint but delay in itself cannot be a ground for scuttling the prosecution even before a trial can be held. The other ground agitated by the petitioners that there is no sufficient ground to proceed, requires consideration. This Court has been taken through the materials on record, including the materials collected during the course of investigation, and upon perusal of the same, I find that the learned Magistrate did not commit an error by taking cognizance of the offence while differing with the final form.
It is well settled that at the stage of Cognizance, what needs to be seen is as to whether a prima facie case is made out. Reliance is placed upon the case of Sonu Gupta V. Deepak Gupta reported in (2015) 3 SCC 424; wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is required only to apply his judicial mind to ascertain whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not and is not required to evaluate the merits of the evidence or consider the evidence to determine whether the material would ultimately lead to conviction or not. The aforementioned principle has also been reiterated in the case of Pramila Devi & Ors. V. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 886.
The narration of facts in the present FIR, coupled with the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation, including the fact that there was a disclosure made by the deceased himself which would act as a dying declaration, are pointers towards the fact that a prima facie case has been disclosed and the case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside at this stage. Since the Magistrate has recorded his subjective satisfaction with regard to existence of a prima facie case on the basis of allegations made in the FIR, supported by other materials collected during investigation, I do not find any patent illegality in the impugned order dated 23.01.2021 taking cognizance of the offence in question.
I may now advert to the question of sustainability of the other impugned order dated 02.08.2025, whereby the discharge petition of the petitioners has been rejected. The order rejecting discharge petition vividly discloses the materials collected during course of investigation, including that of tower location and also the dying declaration of the deceased which possibly cannot be overlooked. This is not the stage where the Court could have gone into the question of reliability or otherwise of the said oral dying declaration and also, the disputed question of fact with regard to the tower location could only be thrashed out in trial by leading evidence.
The order impugned is a well-reasoned order encompassing the arguments of the petitioners with regard to their false implication on account of some partnership dispute, and the real reason being some family dispute of the deceased and has rightly reached the conclusion that these are all grounds which have to be established during trial. The law is well-settled that a discharge petition should not be simply rejected in routine manner only since the Magistrate has taken cognizance, rather there ought to be a consideration of the materials collected during investigation, and such consideration is evident and adherence to the requirement of such consideration, has been followed in its spirit by the order impugned. At the stage of framing of charge, no doubt the Court is not to act as a mere post-office, but it is also a fact that sifting of evidence cannot be meticulous and a roving enquiry cannot be undertaken.
In the case of Md. Allauddin Khan vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107, it was held the the appreciation of contradictions or inconsistencies in statement of witnesses lies within the exclusive domain of the Trial Court and not in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Further, in the case of CBI vs. Aryan Singh reported in (2023) SCC onLine SC 379, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of discharge or quashing of criminal proceedings, Court is not required to conduct a mini trial, as such it was held that the High Court exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings by invoking its inherent power. The paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the above-mentioned judgment are being quoted hereunder:
“6.From the impugned common judgment and order [Aryan Singh v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 4158] passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency.
7.Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”.”
In this context, this Court would gainfully refer to the case of State of Odisha vs. Pratima Mohanty reported in (2022) 16 SCC 703, to highlight the fact that at the stage of discharge or considering an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C, the Courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if it was conducting a mini-trial. The relevant paragraphs are being reproduced hereunder:
“8.2.It is trite that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per the settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC when after a thorough investigation the charge-sheet has been filed. At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under Section 482CrPC the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducting the mini-trial. As held by this Court the powers under Section 482CrPC are very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
11.While quashing the criminal proceedings the High Court has not at all adverted to itself the aforesaid aspects and has embarked upon an enquiry as to the reliability and genuineness of the evidence collected during the investigation as if the High Court was conducting the mini-trial. Therefore, as such the impugned judgment and order [Pratima Mohanty v. State of Odisha, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 305] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents herein—original Accused 4, 5 and 3, Smt Pratima Mohanty, Shri Prakash Chandra Patra and Shri Rajendra Kumar Samal is unsustainable, both, in law and/or facts and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.”
Considering the above-mentioned law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is completely conscious of the fact that while invoking its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C, the principles of caution, care and circumspection have to be diligently exercised as the same would have far reaching consequences of negating the case of the prosecution without allowing the prosecution/informant to lead evidence. At this stage, this Court is tempted to quote the relevant portion of the judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh reported in (1977) 4 SCC 39, enunciating the fact that at the stage of section 227 or 228 of the Cr.P.C, the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient grounds for conviction of the accused but it only has to see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed with the trial or not. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in paragraph no. 5 of the said judgment as follows:
“5.In Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal [(1973) 3 SCC 753 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 521 : (1973) 2 SCR 66] — Shelat, J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the majority of the Court referred at p. 79 of the report to the earlier decisions of this Court in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose [AIR 1963 SC 1430 : (1964) 1 SCR 639 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 397] — where this Court was held to have laid down with reference to the similar provisions contained in Sections 202 and 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
“that the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction, and observed that where there was prima facie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of a process could not be refused”. Illustratively, Shelat, J., further added “Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case”.
Having considered the factual scenario in juxtaposition with settled legal propositions, this Court finds that the issues raised herein, should be left to be decided by the Trial Court after leading of evidence as it is not permissible to delve into the probative value, merits of the allegations and material on record as the same would amount to conducting a mini trial. Finding the orders impugned to be bereft of any patent error or illegality, the same warrant no interference, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
The proper stage for consideration of the arguments raised by the petitioners would be only after testing the evidence on the touchstone of reliability during the trial, when the Court can reach a definite finding of conviction or acquittal and the petitioners would have all opportunity during the trial to establish their defence and to disprove the allegations by way of leading or assailing evidence. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the allegations and no prejudice should be caused to the case of either of the parties by the present order.
Accordingly, the present quashing application challenging the impugned orders dated 23.01.2021 and 02.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hilsa, Nalanda and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda, respectively arising out of Hilsa P.S. Case No. 411 of 2017, hereby stands dismissed.