Patna HC Refuses To Quash Gang-Rape Case Against Four Accused, Says Absence Of Injuries Does Not Rule Out Alleged Rape Of 12-Year-Old

In brief

The question

Whether the court could take cognizance against the petitioners despite the police having submitted a closure report.

The court held

The High Court held that the cognizance order dated 2 February 2019 did not warrant interference and dismissed the petition to quash it.

It also directed

It directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court, along with the trial-court record, if any.

01Facts

The informant alleged that her 12-year-old deaf and non-speaking daughter was gang-raped by the petitioners, who were named in the FIR.

¶ 3

The police submitted a final/closure report, but cognizance was taken against the petitioners for offences under Sections 376D/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), after consideration of the case materials, including the informant’s Section 164 CrPC statement, medical report and FSL report.

¶ 3–5

The petitioners sought to quash the cognizance order, arguing, among other things, that the bleeding was menstrual, no injuries supported the allegation, and the police had filed a closure report.

¶ 2, 6

The informant opposed the petition, relying on the specific gang-rape allegation in the FIR.

¶ 8

02Issues

i.Whether the court could take cognizance against the petitioners despite the police having submitted a closure report.

¶ 6–7, 10

ii.Whether the cognizance order should be quashed on the basis of the alleged absence of injuries and the petitioners’ claim that the bloodstains resulted from menstruation.

¶ 6, 9–12

03Law Applied

Under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate may, upon considering the police report and accompanying material, take cognizance even where the police have filed a closure report; the available options include accepting the report, taking cognizance on the materials, or directing further investigation (H.S. Bains v. State (U.T. of Chandigarh), (1980) 4 SCC 631; Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 11 SCC 299; as reproduced through Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1043).

¶ 7

The absence of genital or other injuries does not, by itself, establish that rape did not occur; rape is a legal conclusion, not a medical diagnosis (State of Tamil Nadu v. Ravi @ Nehru, (2006) 10 SCC 534).

¶ 10–11

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 34

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 164 Section 190 Section 169

04Reasoning

The High Court found that the FIR named all four petitioners and alleged gang rape of the minor, and that the cognizance order rested on the FIR and other materials, including the informant’s Section 164 CrPC statement and the FSL report.

¶ 9–10

The police closure report did not prevent the court from independently considering those materials and taking cognizance.

¶ 7, 10

The arguments concerning the absence of injuries and the possible menstrual cause of the bloodstains raised factual disputes that could not be resolved in the quashing proceeding and were matters for trial.

¶ 10

The Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the cognizance order.

¶ 12