Patna High Court
Deepa Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 7 July, 2026
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.874 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2022 Thana- BARHARA KOTHI District- Purnia
======================================================
Deepa Devi W/O Shivanandan @ Mantu Mandal R/O Vill.- Luxmipur,
Bhujangi Tola, P.S.- Barhara (Raghuvansh Nagar O.P.), Dist.- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Heeralal Mandal S/O late Parsadi Mandal R/O Vill.- Luxmipur, Bhujangi
Tola, P.S.- Barhara (Raghuvansh Nagar O.P.), Dist.- Purnea.
3. Anjani Kumar @ Purnanand Mandal S/O Heeralal Mandal R/O Vill.-
Luxmipur, Bhujangi Tola, P.S.- Barhara (Raghuvansh Nagar O.P.), Dist.-
Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Raunak Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I intend
to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.
02. The present petition has been filed against the
order dated 19.06.2026 passed by the learned ACJM 1st, Purnea
in G.R. No. 1031 of 2022 arising out of Barhara (Raghuvansh
Nagar) P.S. Case No. 80 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the
learned ACJM took cognizance of the offences under sections
447, 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against
opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
03. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the
informant Deepa Devi instituted Barhara (Raghuvansh Nagar)
P.S. Case No. 80 of 2022 for the offences under Section 143,
341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 447, 448, 354(B), 379, 509 of the IPC
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.874 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026
2/4
with allegation that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 along with
three coaccused persons armed with lathi and danda entered
into the house of the informant and assaulted the informant and
tore her blouse, petticoat and saree. When the mother-in-law of
the informant came for her rescue, she was also assaulted and
pushed down and she received internal injuries. The brother-in-
law of the informant was also assaulted with lathi and danda.
The opposite parties had been demanding that the informant and
her family vacate the land where their house was situated.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned trial court omitted to take note of the fact that the
mother-in-law of the informant subsequently died but no
cognizance has been taken under Section 304 of the Indian
Penal Code against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Since there
is specific allegation in the written report of FIR and also in the
submission of the witnesses that the mother-in-law of the
informant namely Urmila Devi received internal injuries and
thereafter succumbed to those injuries after a few days of the
occurrence. Therefore, the material available on record was not
taken into consideration. Learned counsel also submits that at
the stage of cognizance, it is only to be seen whether prima
facie material is available for the cognizance and no threadbare
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.874 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026
3/4
analysis is required. Learned counsel also submits that though
witnesses in paragraph nos. 48 and 49 of the case diary have
stated that nobody saw the accused persons assaulting the
mother-in-law of the informant though they have also stated that
subsequently they came to know that the mother-in-law of the
informant was also assaulted and pushed and she died a few
days thereafter. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the
impugned order suffers from illegality and impropriety and the
same needs to be set aside.
05. Perused the record.
06. From perusal of record, I find that copy of the
charge sheet is on record and from this charge sheet it is
apparent that the mother-in-law of the informant was not
medically examined after the occurrence and she did not receive
any injuries on the date of occurrence. Even the witnesses cited
by the learned counsel for the petitioner have stated that they
did not see the mother-in-law of the petitioner being assaulted or
pushed down by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 or any other
coaccused persons. It has further been mentioned in the charge
sheet that the mother-in-law of the informant was taken to one
hospital a week after the occurrence in unconscious state and the
doctor after assessment found paralytic attack and the doctor did
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.874 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026
4/4
not find any type of injury on the mother-in-law of the
informant. So the prosecution deleted Section 304 of the IPC
from the charge sheet.
07. If there was no credible material before the
learned trial court to take cognizance for the offences under
Section 304 of the IPC, mere allegation in the written report of
the FIR or family members of the informant examined as
witnesses would not suffice for the purpose of taking
cognizance under Section 304 of the IPC against the opposite
party nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, the learned trial court rightly
proceeded in the matter and did not take cognizance for Section
304 of the IPC. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned
order dated 19.06.2026 and hence, the same is affirmed.
08. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present case,
the same is dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE - Uploading Date 07.07.2026 Transmission Date 07.07.2026
