IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3711 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2021 Thana- SC/ST District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Dr. Gautam Choudhry @ Gautam Kumar, son of Dr. Chandra Bhusan Choudhary, R/O Allahabad Bank, Bihpur, P.S.- Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Manisha Kumari, D/o Late Daso Paswan, R/O Village- Hariom, P.S.- Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ranjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, Spl.PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Special P.P. for the State. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.08.2022 passed in Special SC/ST Case No. 55 of 2021 arising out of Naugachia SC/ST P.S. Case No. 03 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 504, 506/34, 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to “SC/ST Act”) by the learned Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3711 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026 2/6 Additional Sessions Judge – III – cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bhagalpur, whereby and whereunder learned trial court has issued summons to the appellant to face his trial in the aforesaid case. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 26.03.2021, while the informant/respondent no. 2 had gone to the clinic of the appellant for her check-up, the appellant alleged to have caught her breast and when hulla was raised by her, her brother came there, who was also assaulted by the compounders and staff of the clinic of the appellant. It is alleged that the informant/respondent no. 2 and her brother were abused by taking their caste name. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that police after investigation submitted closure report qua appellant and he was not sent up for facing the trial whereas finding the occurrence true, the charge-sheet was submitted against the other co-accused persons. 5. It is submitted that prior to lodging this FIR, appellant filed an informatory petition under section 39 of the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3711 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026 3/6 Cr.P.C. against the brother of the informant before the learned CJM, Naugachia, Bhagalpur on 06.04.2021 and in reiteration of that, on imaginary grounds, the present FIR was lodged against the appellant making the informant instrumental. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel that even upon facial perusal of the FIR, it can be safely gathered that the date and time of occurrence are missing over there which only strengthening the false accusation. 7. It is pointed out that in fact the dispute surfaced regarding the medical expenses, out of which the present false case was lodged. It is also submitted that no such caste abuse was made by the appellant in public view. 8. Arguing further, it is submitted by learned counsel that learned jurisdictional Magistrate took a different view without assigning any reason and on this ground alone, the order of cognizance qua appellant be set aside. 9. It would be apposite to reproduce the cognizance order for better appreciation of case in hand, which is as under: Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3711 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026 4/6 “U;k;ky;] r`rh; vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh”k&lg&fo”ks’k U;k;k/kh”k ¼,l0lh0@,l0Vh0½] ,DV HkkxyiqjA uoxfN;k ,l0 lh0@ ,l0Vh0 Fkkuk dk.M la[;k%& 03@2021 Spl Sc/St Case No- 55/2021 25-08-2022 vfHkys[k miLFkkfir fd;k x;kA bl okn ds vuqla/kkudrkZ }kjk ewy vkjksi i= la[;k 26@2022] fnukad 18-08-2022 ds lkFk ewy ds”k Mk;jh i`’B la[;k 01 ls 50 rd izkFkfedh vfHk;qDr Mk0 xkSre pkS/kjh dks vuqiszf’kr fn[kkrs gq, vkjksi i= ds [k.M 11 esa ukfer vfHk;qDr dze”k% 01- lqeu Bkdqj 02- eks0 bcjkj vkye 03- mej Qk:[k ds fo:) Hkk0 n0 fo0 dh /kkjk 323]504]506]34 ,oa ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0 ,DV dh /kkjk 3(1)(r) (s)/3(2)(va) ds vUrxZr vkjksi i= vkt lefiZr fd;k x;k gSA ns[kkA izkFkfedh] vkjksi i= ,oa ds”k Mk;jh ds voyksdu ls miyC/k lkefxz;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vkjksi i= ds [k.M 11 esa ukfer vfHk;qDr 01- lqeu Bkdqj 02- eks0 bcjkj vkye 03- mej Qk:[k ds vykos vuqizsf’kr fn[kk;s x;s vfHk;qDr Mk0 xkSre pkS/kjh ds fo:) Hkh mijksDr /kkjkvksa ds vykos Hkk0n0fo0 dh /kkjk 354(A) ds varxZr Hkh izFke n`’V;k dkjokbZ dk vk/kkj curk gSA vr% vkjksi i= ds [k.M 11 esa ukfer vfHk;qDr 01- lqeu Bkdqj 02- eks0 bcjkj vkye 03- mej Qk:[k ,oa vuqizsf’kr fn[kk;s x;s vfHk;qDr 04- Mk0 xkSre pkS/kjh ds fo:) Hkk0 n0 fo0 dh /kkjk 323]354(A)]504]506]34 ,oa ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0 ,DV dh /kkjk 3(1) (r)(s)/3(2)(va) ds vUrxZr vijk/k dk laKku fy;k tkrk gS rFkk okn ds fopkj.k ,oa fu’iknu gsrq futh lafpdk esa j[kk tkrk gSA fnukad 06-09-2022 okLrs vfHk;qDRkksa ds mifLFkfr gsrq dk;kZy; vfHk;qDRkksa ij lEeu tkjh djsaA ys[kkfir g0@& fo0 U;k0 ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0 ,DV Hkkxyiqj” 10. Earlier, vide order dated 22.12.2022, notice was issued to the respondent no. 2/informant, which was validly served upon her, but none turned up on behalf of the respondent no. 2/informant as to join the present proceeding. 11. Learned Special P.P. for the State, while opposing the quashing petition, submitted that appellant is disputing the factual aspects, which can be ascertained during the trial only. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate is duly empowered under section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C./210(1)(b) of the B.N.S.S. as to take a different view from the charge- Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3711 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026 5/6 sheet, as submitted, after investigation and, therefore, merely on this ground the cognizance order cannot be viewed with doubt. 12. In this context, learned Spl. P.P. relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Nahar Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2022) 5 SCC 295], whereby learned Apex Court highlighted the power of Magistrate to take cognizance under section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. where it was held that Magistrate is not bound by the police report and can take a different view. 13. It is also submitted by learned Special P.P. that allegation is specific against this appellant as per FIR as to outrage the informant while she approached him for her treatment and when it was opposed, she alongwith her brother were assaulted badly by compounders and other employees of the appellant. It is also submitted that upon investigation police found the occurrence true. 14. As far allegation under SC/ST Act is concerned, it also appears that abuse under caste name was made prima- facie in public view. Certainly merely as the date and time of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3711 of 2022 dt.19-02-2026 6/6 the occurrence is missing in FIR and the cognizance was taken by learned Jurisdictional Magistrate by taking a different view from the closure report as submitted qua appellant by police after investigation, the cognizance order cannot be viewed with doubt, particularly when the occurrence found correct during investigation. 15. The issue raised by the appellant can be ascertained only during the trial. 16. In view of aforesaid, the present quashing petition is devoid of any merit, and, accordingly, same stands dismissed. 17. However, the appellant is under liberty in view of submission to raise all such issues at the time of framing of charge, if so advised. Rajeev/- (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19.02.2026 Transmission Date 19.02.2026