Justice Arun Kumar Jha reduces sentence for outraging modesty of a woman in 2009

Patna High Court did not deliver any judgement on September 9, 2025, it had delivered seven judgements on September 8, 2025 in Rishi Ram vs. The State of Bihar, Biswajit Dan vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., Dinesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Kundan Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Shipra Shikha, vs. The State of Bihar, Dhanuki Panchayat Primary Agriculture Credit Society Ltd. and Anr. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Ram Babu Prasad Yadav. 

Justice Arun Kumar Jha reduces sentence for outraging modesty of a woman in 2009

In Rishi Ram vs. The State of Bihar, the 5-page long judgement by Justice Arun Kumar Jha concluded: ''the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate the matter again in this revision petition. If the facts were appreciated in the light of the evidence and two subordinate courts recorded a concurrent finding, there is very little scope for this Court to interfere in the matter in revision. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the petitioner has already undergone nine months of incarceration in this case and further considering the fact that he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing this lis from the last 16 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the petitioner, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner under the aforesaid sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. 9. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed. 10. Let the petitioner be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.'' 

This  criminal revision was preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated November 28, 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Biharsharif, Nalanda in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2018 arising out of Bind P.S. Case No. 133 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated December 1, 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Nalanda at Biharsharif has been affirmed by which the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 509 and 504 IPC and was  sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with fine under Section 509 IPC and also was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine under Section 504 IPC and it wasordered that both the sentences were run concurrently, was affirmed. As per prosecution case, on November 9, 2009, when the informant was returning from her tuition class with her friends, the accused petitioner asked the informant to go fishing and take a bath in the water with him and on her refusal, the petitioner had misbehaved with her. Section 509 of IPC deals with the word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. It reads: ''Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.'' Section 504 deals with the intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. It reads:''Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.''

Earlier, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri had condoned the delay of 408 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the revisional application by 408 days. The order reads: ''the petitioner satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the revision application.''

 

 

Justice Pancholi led Division Bench upholds judgment of acquittal by Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Sherghati, Gaya

In his 19-page long 20th judgement of the year dated June 17, 2025 in Munni Devi vs. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Gaya & Ors. (2025), Justice Pancholi led Division Bench dismissed the appeal saying, "we are of the view that while passing the impugned order of acquittal, the learned Trial Court has not committed any error, as the prosecution has failed to prove the case against respondent/accused beyond reasonable doubt." It was not inclined to entertain the acquittal appeal filed by the informant. The appellant/original informant had filed the appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated September 9, 2024 rendered by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Sherghati, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.138/2022/950/2023, which arose out of Gurua P.S. case of 2020, whereby the respondents-accused, the residents of Auradih, Gurua, Gaya were acquitted by the Trial Court. The three private respondents who were acquitted were: Akhilesh Chaudhary Arjun Chaudhary and Pratima Kumari.

The Court's judgement records that APP submitted that "the Trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal and, therefore, in the present acquittal appeal filed by the informant, no interference is required. It is also submitted that State has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal."  

Justice Pancholi led bench relied on in paragraph no. 42 of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415. It reads: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; 
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

It also relied on paragraph no. 22 of the Supreme Court's decision in Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 605. It reads: “22. Recently, a three-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar has considered various earlier judgments on the scope of interference in a case of acquittal. It held that there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence that is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the court. It has been further held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should
not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

Drawing decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, Justice Pancholi observed:"it can be said that there is double presumption in favour of the accused, when the order of acquittal has been accorded by the Trial Court: Firstly, the presumption of innocence that is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law; Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the court. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 

The case began on August 3, 2020, at about 04:15 p.m., informant, Munni Devi's daughter Nirmala Kumar was returning from a Devi temple after offering her prayer. Pratima Kumari of her village started abusing her daughter. When her daughter forbade Pratima Kumari to do so, she caught hold of her hair and pulled her down. Arjun Choudhary, Akhilesh Choudhary and Phulesh Devi came and started assaulting her daughter. When the informant and Sarjun Chaudhary, her husband came there after hearing the alarm, Phulesh Devi caught her, pulled her down and started assaulting her on her breast by leg and assaulted her on her ear by means of iron rod due to which the ear of the informant was torn and started bleeding. Akhilesh Choudhary assaulted her husband on his head by means of iron rod due to which her husband fell down there and started vomiting blood and became unconscious. Thereafter, the accused persons had fled. The local people gathered there after hearing alarm and brought her husband to Gaya Hospital from where he was referred to Blue Diamond Hospital, Patna where her husband died during the course of treatment after two days.  Fardbeyan was given by the informant on August 5, 2020. After recording the fardbeyan of the informant, the concerned police officer, Agamkuan Police Station, Patna sent the same to Gurua Police Station, Gaya. 

The fardbeyan was recorded as formal FIR on August 12, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. The High Court noted that there was "delay in lodging the FIR and there is delay in lodging the formal FIR. No explanation has been rendered by the prosecution with regard to the same." The FIR was registered under Sections 341/323/302/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch Practices Act against the respondents-accused as Gurua P.S. Case No.178/2020. The High Court observed:"Thus, there are serious lapses on the part of the concerned police authorities." The Investigating Officer, PW-7 in his deposition "specifically admitted that rod was not recovered or discovered. He did not find any blood at the place of occurrence."

During the trial, PW-1, Nirmala Kumari, who is daughter of the informant as well as the deceased, has mainly deposed in her examination-in-chief that Pratima Kumari, the fourth respondent/accused was standing on the way and telling that her mother was a dain (witch) and she obstructed fixing of her marriage. 

Notably, PW-3, Tetri Devi, mother of Sarjun Choudhary, the deceased deposed in her examination-in-chief that Sarjun Choudhary was her son who fell after consuming liquor and due to fall he died. The accused persons did not kill her son. The accused Akhilesh Choudhary and Pratima Kumari were her grandson and granddaughter. The police recorded her statement. She had given the same statement before the police saying her son fell in a drunken state and died. The Court noted that PW-3 "was not declared hostile and, therefore, the deposition given by the said witness is required to be considered as it is."

 

Also read: Justice Vipul Pancholi to take over as Patna High Court Chief Justice, dismissed State Government Appeals against acquittal of 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2024, set aside judgment of 1991

Supreme Court dismisses husband's special leave petition, orders transfer of fixed deposit of Rs.1,00,000/ with interest to account of wife

In Ram Kishore Singh @Ram Kishore vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar passed an order on April 30, 2025. It reads:"In the instant special leave petition, notice was issued on 02.04.2024 only with respect to mediation subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,00,000/- which is lying with the Registry of this Court in Fixed Deposit. 2) Later, the matter was referred to mediation on 24.01.2025. As per the report received from the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, the mediation remained unsuccessful. 3) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and due to the fact that limited notice was issued for mediation which remained unsuccessful, we are not inclined to entertain the present special leave petition. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed. ....4) On supplying the account details of the complainant-respondent No.2 within three days to the Registry, the amount lying in the fixed deposit along with interest, if any, shall be transmitted in her account". The order was passed after the receipt of the mediation report. The respondent no. 2 is Raushani Kumari, a resident of Chandmari, Motihari and the wife of the petitioner.

This case arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated February 13, 2024 passed by Justice Patna High Court which had arisen out of police case in 2022 in Mahila Thana, East Champaran. The application before the High Court was filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing order dated July 19, 2022 passed by SDJM, Sadar Motihari, East Champaran whereby he had taken cognizance under sections 498(A), 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in connection with Mahila P.S. Case pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Sadar Motihari, East Champaran.

The prosecution case, was that the wife of the petitioner had filed the case, alleging that on November 30, 2013, her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner, and her father gave her ornaments worth Rs. 2,50,000/-, clothes and furniture, and cash of Rs. 10–12 lakh. After marriage, she had gone to her matrimonial house, and after 4-5 days of hearing about the cheating of her husband on another girl, at the instigation of her in-laws, her husband started demanding a four-wheeler. On this issue, her husband (the petitioner), Harikant Singh (the father-in-law), Kunti Devi, Shyam Kishore Singh (Devar), and Kanhaiya Kishore Singh (Devar) started torturing her; for that, they abused her and threatened to kill her. Her husband tried to kill her with his licensed revolver. After acknowledging the same, her parents tried to pacify the matter. In the meantime, from wedlock, six-year-old Om Kumar (son) and a one-year-old daughter (Ananya) were born, but they did not stop torturing. In the year 2020, her husband went to Patna to leave her and their children. He did not want to talk and provide expenses. He always used to talk about another marriage. In 2021, he ousted her, taking all her belongings. After settlement, she went to Sasural at Muzaffarpur, but on January 12, 2022, they ousted her and always threatened to kill her and her family members. Her husband is a police personnel, and he was posted at the District Head Quarter Motihari, C.I.D. Department. The petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of Opposite Party No. 2, and no such occurrence, as alleged in F.I.R., has ever taken place. The petitioner has never committed any torture or demanded any dowry from OP No. 2. It is next submitted that the marriage is about more than 11 years old, and out of wedlock, two children were born who are presently aged about 8 years and 2 and a half years. It is also asserted and submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is not aggrieved by his wife but is aggrieved further submits that the petitioner has been implicated in more than three cases by the Opposite party No. 2. He submitted that the petitioner was ready and willing to keep Opposite Party No. 2, as his wife, with honour and dignity. The counsel of the Opposite party No. 2 submitted that there was specific allegation against this petitioner that he, along with other co-accused persons, not only assaulted the Opposite party No. 2 but also abused her on several occasions for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and lastly, in the year 2018 also, the petitioner demanded dowry, and on refusal, the petitioner threatened the opposite party No. 2 on the point of pistol. Therefore, it was prayed on
behalf of opposite party no. 2 that the petitioner should be put on trial. 

The High Court's Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh had concluded: "Considering the rival submissions of the parties and materials available on record, the Court is of the opinion that there is direct and specific allegation against this petitioner of committing torture, assault, and abuse to opposite party No. 2. As such, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned which warrants any interference by this Court." The petition was dismissed. 

Supreme Court's Division Bench reverses decision of Justice Partha Sarthy which endorsed cognizance order of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Biharsharif (Nalanda)

In Parmanand Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran observed:"In any case considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offences and the sequence therein, it appears to be a false case and we are of the opinion that in this case, the High Court ought to have invoked the power under Section 482 of the Code and should have against the petitioner. We do not think there is any justification here in this case for the petitioner to undergo trial." It allowed the prayer of the petitioner and quash the criminal proceedings. The 3-page long order was passed on April 29, 2025.  

The petitioner was an accused in a complaint case instituted at the instance of Rohit Raj, the respondent no.2-complainant pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharshariff, Nalanda, Bihar, or the offences punishable under 379, 504, 506, 120(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) where the Court took cognizance under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC against the petitioner. His petition against this order, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed by Justice Partha Sarthy of the Patna High Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. The Court had stayed further proceedings in the complaint against the petitioner by its order dated November 11, 2024. 

Section 323 deals with voluntarily causing hurt. This section punishes anyone who intentionally causes harm to another person, excluding cases covered under Section 334. The punishment for this offense can be imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to 1,000 rupees, or both.

Section 504 deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. This section penalizes individuals who intentionally insult someone, thereby provoking them to commit a breach of the peace or other offenses. The punishment for this offense can be imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.

Section 506 deals with criminal intimidation. This section addresses criminal intimidation, which includes making threats to cause death or grievous hurt, or to commit other serious offenses. The punishment for this offense can vary depending on the severity of the threat, ranging from up to two years of imprisonment and/or a fine for simple intimidation, to up to seven years of imprisonment, a fine, or both for more severe threats.

The complaint stated that the petitioner along with another person had attacked on the respondent no.2-the complainant. There are no injuries and the case inter-alia is registered under Section 307 of the IPC, which addresses the offense of attempt to murder.. The fact of the matter is that prior to one month from filing of the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner had lodged an FIR against the respondent no.2-the complainant along with another person for having attacked the petitioner who is a practicing lawyer in Patna. It is from the very same transaction, where the complainant had gone to the office of the petitioner with the another person that the complaint was raised after one month. 

In his 7-page long order dated July 11, 2024, Justice Partha Sarthy had concluded: "in the opinion of the Court, there is no illegality in the order impugned dated 5.7.2023 passed in Complaint Case no.135C of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Biharsharif (Nalanda) taking cognizance under sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code".

He observed: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, this Court finds that in the complaint (Annexure-1) filed by the complainant, there is no direct allegation against the petitioner along with one another of having abused and assaulted the complainant and others. Though the petitioner has made substantial points of an earlier FIR having been lodged by him being Bihar P.S. Case no.28 of 2023 on 8.1.2023 with respect to the occurrence of the same date as in the present complaint, the Investigating Officer having found the contents of the said FIR to be true and having submitted chargesheet no.194 of 2023 on 28.2.2023 together with the delay in filing of the instant complaint, in the opinion of the Court, these points being the defence of the petitioner could not have been looked into by the learned trial Court at the time of taking cognizance. The Court was required only to see the contents of the complaint petition together with the statement of the complainant and the witnesses examined in support of the complaint during enquiry. The Court did not have the jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint." He made reference to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar & Anr.; (1985) 2 SCC 370 and M/s. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. vs. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors.; (2000) 3 SCC 269.

Battling a "fake and fabricated case", suicidal Dr Shweta Burnwal reaches Patna High Court, writes to Prime Minister

Dr. Shweta Burnwal filed a criminal miscellaneous petition No. 11352/2024 on January 20, 2024 in the Patna High Court on the subject of quashing of the order of cognizance arising out of complaint of Khagaria Police Station Case No.: 128 dated April 1, 2023. It was registered in the High Court on February 9, 2024. Bipin Kumar is the additional respondent who has got an vakalatnama filed on April 15, 2024 by his counsel. 

It is apparent that the matter is pending  before the Court of Justice Partha Sarthy because some defects have not yet been cured as yet. 

In the meanwhile, in a letter dated May 29, 2024 addressed to the Prime Minister, Dr. Shweta Burnwal has informed that Bipin Kumar, her husband is trying to kill her. She was filed a case against him under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code on September 12, 2021. She was married to him on February 20, 2020. Because of harassment by her husband, she started living with her parents in Kolkata since March 14, 2021. Her mother is suffering from cancer. She wrote, "my husband has been harassing me and my family in all its forms, both mentally and physically. My husband, Bipin Kumar, is close to the judiciary and has filed false cases against me and my maternal grandparents in just eight months." The notice of the cases against her and her family has not been received by her and her family (father, brother, sister, brother-in-law, two maternal uncles and Mami). She has claimed that all the advocates of the Khagaria Court have refused to take up her case under the influence of her husband. 

In her letter to the Prime Minister, she wrote, "मेरे पति बिपिन कुमार न्यायपालिका में नजदीकि के कारण और अपनी बदनियति से झूठे मुकदमे कर महज आठ (8) महीने में ही crpc 82 और 83 (कुर्की, जपती) मुझे और मेरे ननिहाल के परिवारों पर लगवा दिए हैं ।इस केस (128c/ 2023) की सूचना मुझे और मेरे परिवार वालों(पिता,भाई,बहन, बहनोई,दो मामा, मामी और मैं) को सीआरपीसी 82 लगने तक तक किसी भी माध्यम से प्राप्त नहीं हुई जैसा कि कोर्ट के आर्डर शीट में भी लिखा गया है कि तामिला अप्राप्त (जिसकी कॉपी इसके साथ संलग्न कर रही हुं)." She concluded her letter saying, "यह बहुत खेद के साथ कहना पड़ रहा है कि मैं मानसिक रूप से डिप्रेशन में जा रही हूं और साथ ही मैं इस विकट परिस्थिति में आत्महत्या करने की और अग्रसर हो रही हूं।" 

The other side of the story can be gathered from the FIR and the complaint letter available at https://in.docs.wps.com/l/sIDnP4tiCAqmUhbMG?v=v2 which was filed by Vinay Kumar, the brother of Bipin Kumar, a Court Manager in Khagaria Court. In the compliant it has been alleged that Bipin Kumar's wife and her family members have indulged in criminal  intimidation and criminal activities on the body and the property of the family of the complainant including his mother.   

   

Cognizance order of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra quashed and set aside

Patna High Court's Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha quashed and set aside the cognizance order of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra in Rajiv Kumar Sinha v State of Bihar on March 27, 2024. The Court drew on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992). 

The paragraph no. 102 of the Supreme Court's decision reads:  “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first informant report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

The High Court factored in the guiding note of Guideline Nos. 1, 5 and 7 of Bhajan Lal case to quash and set aside the order of taking cognizance dated June 10, 2015 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra with all its consequential proceedings. in connection with Tr. No. 980/2015 arising out of complaint case No. 709/2015. 

The petition was filed for quashing of cognizance order dated June 10, 2015 whereby the Magistrate had taken cognizance for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner. The complaint case was lodged by one Lal Jharia Devi. She made the following allegations:-

(i) It is alleged that the complainant and her husband, namely, Sona Lal Bhagat purchased a policy bearing No. 537138740 through the LIC agent, namely, Kameshwar Ram and thereafter, her husband gave Rs. 10,000/- per year to the LIC agent for deposit in his policy. Later on, they gave Rs. 23,060/- to Kameshwar Ram for deposit in the LIC but it was not deposited with the LIC. When the complainant and her husband went to demand her money back, the LIC agent, Kameshwar Ram refused to return the amount and snatched her belongings. When the complainant went along with some villagers at the residence of the agent, he refused to repay the amount.

(ii) It is further alleged that when the complainant intimated the Branch Manager (petitioner) about the conduct of the agent, he did not extend any cooperation rather told that the policy has lapsed.

The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the entire occurrence of abuse and assault as alleged were taken place between O.P. No. 2 and main co-accused namely, Kameshwar Ram, against whom the thrust of allegations are available, who was the agent of LIC with whom the husband of O.P. No. 2 deposited Rs.23,060/- to deposit it further with Policy No. 537138740 of LIC. It was submitted that from the face of complaint, it can be gathered easily that no prima facie case as alleged can be gathered against petitioner for the reasons that no allegation of abuse and assault is available against petitioner. It was submitted that maximum incriminating narrations what available against this petitioner is to reply O.P. No. 2 during course of conversation that no such amount as claimed was ever deposited with this branch of LIC. Itwas also submitted that there is no concept of vicarious liability in criminal proceedings, where implication of petitioner appears only for his vicarious liability being manager of the Marhawra Branch of LIC. It was further submitted that amount in issue was also alleged to be deposited with co-accused, Kameshwar Ram and as such present proceeding against petitioner is liable to be quashed.