DHIRENDRA SINGH @ BHAGWAN SINGH vs THE STATE OF BIHAR
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5800 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2021 Thana- RAMGARHWA District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Dhirendra Singh @ Bhagwan Singh Son Of Late Kapildeo Singh R/V-
Chiutaha, P.S.- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran
2. Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Singh Son Of Dhirendra Singh R/V-
Chiutaha, P.S.- Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Suresh Singh Son Of Late Fuldeo Singh R/V- Chiutaha, P.S.- Ramgarhwa,
District- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Adya Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, Advocate
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. The present application has been filed against the
order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Raxaul at
Motihari (East Champaran) whereby cognizance has been taken
under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners,
along with the other co-accused persons, allegedly arrived at the
house of the informant and subjected him to abusive and filthy
language. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 threatened the
informant not to proceed with the registration of the land
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5800 of 2023 dt.16-07-2026
2/4
purchased from Dinanath Singh unless a ransom of Rs.2,00,000/-
was paid. It is further alleged that all the accused persons
physically assaulted the informant by giving fist and slap blows,
and the petitioner No. 1 forcibly obtained the informant's signature
on a blank sheet of paper.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
the illegality is apparent on the face of the record from the order
impugned itself. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners
that after investigation, the police has submitted final form stating
the case to be untrue by way of Annexure-2 dated 29.11.2021. By
the said final form, the proceeding under Section 182/211 of the
IPC was also recommended against the informant of the case
(opposite party no.2).
5. Learned counsel has next pointed out that vide order
dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Raxaul
at Motihari (East Champaran), whereby the police report dated
29.11.2021 was accepted, a direction was also given to open
official complaint under Section 182 and 211 of the IPC against
the informant, Suresh Singh. It has been submitted that there is no
mention whatsoever of any protest petition in the said order.
However, subsequently the impugned order dated 02.11.2022 was
passed once again by the learned S.D.J.M., Raxaul at Motihari
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5800 of 2023 dt.16-07-2026
3/4
(East Champaran) and a hearing was done on the final report dated
29.11.2021 and differing with the same and referring to the
materials in the case diary, the Magistrate proceeded to take
cognizance against two of the accused persons, who are the
present petitioners, and issued summons against them which is
apparently an illegal order and amounts to reviewing the earlier
order dated 28.06.2022, which is not permissible under the
criminal jurisprudence.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2
has opposed the present application by stating that a protest
petition had been filed on behalf of the informant and there is no
illegality in the impugned order dated 02.11.2022. However, he
has not been able to refute the fact that there is no mention of any
protest petition either in the earlier order dated 28.06.2022 nor in
the impugned order dated 02.11.2022.
7. After having heard the rival contentions and having
gone through the entire materials on record, especially, the orders
dated 28.06.2022 seen in juxtaposition with the impugned order
dated 02.11.2022, this Court finds a glaring illegality in the order
impugned. The learned Magistrate was not legally permitted to
review the order dated 28.06.2022, whereby the Court of learned
S.D.J.M., Raxaul at Motihari (East Champaran) had already
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5800 of 2023 dt.16-07-2026
4/4
accepted the final form and had given direction for opening of
official complaint under Section 182 and 211 of the IPC which
was never challenged and thus attained finality. It can thus be
safely concluded that the impugned order has been passed in total
contravention of law as the same amounts to a review of the earlier
order dated 28.06.2022, which is not legally permissible.
8. Even assuming that the said order has been passed in
ignorance of the order dated 28.06.2022, still that can be no
explanation for sustaining the order impugned and it is expected
that the records of the case including earlier order would be
perused before passing any further orders.
9. In such view of the matter and in view of the
foregoing discussion, this Court would thus proceed to quash the
impugned order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Raxaul at Motihari (East Champaran).
10. Accordingly, this application stands allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.07.2026
Transmission Date 17.07.2026