Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1538 of 2011 (3) dt.23-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1538 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Yogendra Pandey S/O Late Sundeshwari Pandey R/O Village-Rewari, P.S.-Angarghat, Distt.-Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Null Null .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Mr. A.K.Thakur, Adv. For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 23-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 11th December 2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dalsingsarai in C.R.No. 454 of 2009 by which the court has taken cognizance [STATUTE] the FIR it appears that the allegation has been made that the accused persons had taken loan from the informant and when the time for return of the same came, on one pretext or the other, petitioner was taking time and were avoiding payment . After some time, a Panchayati was conducted where they had agreed to repay the money. Accused persons called the complainant to come to Panchayat Bhawan on 29th August 2009 at Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1538 of 2011 (3) dt.23-07-2012 7:30 P.M. for return of her money and when she went for her payment, the accused persons had committed rape on her which led to filing of the complaint petition. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has very bad history as she has filed number of cases of similar nature against others and later on those cases were withdrawn. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this complainant has adopted this practice in support of her husband to terrorize the persons of the locality and, as such, the court below before taking cognizance ought to have examined her criminal antecedents of complainant and in support of his contention he has relied on a judgment reported in 2002(4) PLJR 829 (Ajay Sharma vs. State of Bihar) and has submitted that this case is equally applicable to the present case and submitted that the cognizance suffers from mala file and illegality. Counsel for the State has contradicted the argument of the petitioner that at this stage the court has to see only whether a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner or not. So far the above judgment is concerned, it is not applicable to this case in view of the fact that that was a case with regard to suppression of fact but in this case no such issue is involved. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1538 of 2011 (3) dt.23-07-2012 Having considered the rival contention of parties, the point that has been raised with regard to bad history of the complainant with regard to the fact that she is in habit of filing same and similar cases against other persons which cannot be considered at the stage of taking cognizance. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points at the time of framing of charge and the court below while disposing of the matter will pass the reasoned order in accordance with law and the court at he relevant time will also examine the issue raised by the petitioner in the present case. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 376

Statute Text:
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Rape. Whoever, commits an offence punishable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376 and in the course of such commission inflicts an injury which causes the death of the woman or causes the woman to be in a persistent vegetative state, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, or with death.