IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75423 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-554 Year-2018 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Sita Devi wife of Late Rajesh Ram Resident of Village-Chhapramegh,P.S. Musahari,Distt.-Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Braj Kishore Singh Son of Late Ramdayal Singh 3. Nand Kishore Singh Son of Late Ramdayal Singh 4. Shashi Bhushan Singh Son of Braj Kishore Singh 5. Chandra Bhushan Singh @ Sultani Son of Braj Kishore Singh All Resident of Village-Chhapramegh,P.S. Musahari,Distt.-Muzaffarpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Reena Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 13-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 22.09.2018 passed in Complaint Case No. 554 of 2018 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, VI, Muzaffarpur, whereby and whereunder the complaint case of the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and she also examined other enquiry witnesses. After considering the entire facts and materials on record, the learned Magistrate Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75423 of 2018 dt.13-08-2026 2/4 dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant under the provision of Section 203 of Cr.P.C. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the night of 24.02.2018, the complainant and her family members went to sleep after taking dinner. During the night, the husband of the complainant woke up and went outside to attend to the call of nature, but did not return. The complainant thereafter searched for him and subsequently heard a commotion in the village that a dead body in a naked condition was lying on the railway track. She noticed that the gourd plants situated towards the northern side of her house, in the house of Sunil Singh, appeared to have been crushed, giving rise to her suspicion that her husband had been dragged to the railway track and murdered. It has further been alleged that accused persons along with other co-villagers, assembled at the place of occurrence and stated that the police would arrive as the dead body had been found on the railway track, and asked the complainant to perform the last rites of her husband. According to the complainant, her husband had earlier instituted a case under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act against the accused persons, in which they were convicted. It is further alleged that, owing to the said previous enmity, the accused persons had threatened her Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75423 of 2018 dt.13-08-2026 3/4 husband, in respect of which complaints had also been made before the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur. The complainant therefore alleges that, due to the existing enmity, the accused persons murdered her husband and, against her wishes, caused his last rites to be performed. As no effective action was taken by the police despite her complaint, the complainant approached the Court alleging that the accused persons were responsible for the murder of her husband. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a bare perusal of the the impugned order suggests that the case of the complainant has been dismissed as if the learned Magistrate has considered it as a roving enquiry, whereas the learned Magistrate would have to be satisfied that a prima facie is made out. It has further been submitted that this is a case of murder and the materials brought on record including oral and documentary evidence suggest a prima facie case against the opposite parties No. 2 to 5. Moreover, learned Magistrate has gone into the defence of the opposite parties No. 2 to 5 and, thus, the impugned order rejecting the complaint is bad in law and erroneous on the facts. 6. Heard the parties and perused the records. 7. What emerges out from the records is that no steps were taken to lodge an F.I.R., moreover, there was no request for Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75423 of 2018 dt.13-08-2026 4/4 post-mortem examination, when the complainant has the apprehension that the opposite parties No. 2 to 5 have murdered her husband and a previous case was pending against them. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has considered the serious inconsistencies in the statement of the witnesses examined under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. as well as the complaint and solemn affirmation of the complainant and, thus, came to a finding that there was no sufficient prima facie material warranting cognizance against opposite parties No. 2 to 5. The conduct of the complainant appears to be very suspicious. Moreover, an application to the Superintendent of Police in terms of Section 154(3) was sent only after the registration of the present complaint is of no help to the petitioner. 8. In view of such, the impugned order does not require interference. 9. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed. Ankit Kumar/- (Praveen Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 18.08.2026 Transmission Date 18.08.2026