Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.816 of 2011 ====================================================== Binay Kumar Pandey, son of Sri Girija Nandan Pandey, resident of Banwaripur, P.S. Bihta, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2. Budheshwar Singh, son fo late Jagdeep Singh, resident of Banwaripur, P.S. Bihta, District-Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhaya, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 06-02-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.5.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Bihta P.S. Case No.131 of 2000, G.R. No. 742 of 2000, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under [STATUTE] and also for quashing the entire prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.816 of 2011 (2) dt.06-02-2012 2 / 3 2 taking cognizance it was required for the Magistrate to assign reasons about his difference with the final report submitted by the police and in support of his contention he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar Khatri V. The State of Bihar, reported in 2004(4) PLJR 455 and relied on paragraph no.6. It has been further submitted that the present case is of 2000 and cognizance has been taken in the year 2010. I have examined the order dated 17.5.2010. From the impugned order it appears that accused person was absented and the case was heard on the point of cognizance. The court below heard counsel for the State, examined charge-sheet and case diary and only thereafter the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order dated 17.5.2010 as it appears that the trial court has assigned reasons while taking cognizance and the court is not expected to go for mini trial. The court has only to see whether on the basis of the materials available on record, prima facie case is made out or not. This application is dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the points before the trial court at Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.816 of 2011 (2) dt.06-02-2012 3 / 3 3 the appropriate stage. The effect of the order will not be given to any other case which will be decided on its own merit. Vinay/- (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.