IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3291 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Araria ====================================================== 1. Kalyani Badola, daughter of Sridhar Badola @ Sridhar Prasad Badola. 2. Tanmay Nivetita @ Tanvi Nair, don of Vijayan Nair @ Vijayan Nayak. Both resident of ashram mohala mahadev chowk, P.S. and district- Araria. ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Gopal Rai, Advocate Mr. Rajani Kant Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. This application has been under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 22.09.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in Mahila P.S. Case No.61 of 2020, by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under sections 353, 228, 188, 180 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the F.I.R. on 10.07.2020, the prosecutrix of Mahila P.S. Case No.59 of 2020 was brought to the Court of Sri Md. Mustafa Shahi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, for recording of statement under section 164 of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3291 of 2022 dt.10-04-2025 2/6 Cr.P.C. It has been alleged that during the recording of the statement, the petitioners along with the victim obstructed the judicial work, used foul language against the Magistrate and the staff of the court and they disrupted the judicial proceeding and further the petitioners deliberately misbehaved with the Presiding Officer and staff of the court. It has also been alleged that the petitioners instigated the victim, who abused the staff of the court and also threatened the Magistrate inside his chambers. The petitioners also demanded to record the statement of victim again. It has further been alleged that the petitioner no.1 threatened the Magistrate and told him that she is the President of Jan Jagaran Shakti Sangathan and she has contacts with big persons and used threatening language against the Magistrate and also attempted to tear the statement of victim recorded by the Magistrate. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are social activists working with Jan Jagaran Shakti Sangathan, a registered trade union in the district of Araria, which supports the workers. The victim is a 24 years old, who was working as a domestic help in the house of the petitioners and the prosecutrix was gang raped by four persons on 06.07.2020. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3291 of 2022 dt.10-04-2025 3/6 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the victim is not proficient at reading and writing and has no understanding of the law, the petitioners accompanied her to the Court for recording her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 6. It has been submitted that on 10.07.2020, after recording her statement when the same was read out to the victim by the learned Magistrate, the victim expressed her inability to understand certain portions of the statement, which was read out to her and had requested that the petitioners may be allowed to read the statement to her, so that she can fully understand the same. 7. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate has overlooked the mandate of section 164(5A) of the Cr.P.C. which provides for taking assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement when the victim is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled. The amended section therefore specially recognizes the need for ‘support persons’ in case the victim is mentally distraught. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3291 of 2022 dt.10-04-2025 4/6 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in XXX vs. The State of Bihar ( SLP (Crl.) Diary No.24007 / 2022, by which the cognizance taken against the victim/co-accused has been quashed. 9. The order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reads as under:- “Delay condoned. IA No. 109706/2022 is allowed. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent-State. The appellant has approached before this Court in substance against an order passed on 22.09.2020 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, Bihar taking cognizance of offences under Sections 353, 228, 188, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called "the IPC") against the appellant and two other persons. The aforesaid order was passed in connection with certain incidents that occurred while the appellant's statement was being recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called "the Code") by the learned Magistrate, First Class, Araria. The appellant claims to be a victim in relation to offences alleged to have been committed against her under Section 376D of the IPC. The High Court declined to quash the said order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance in the impugned order passed on 21.04.2022 in a petition brought by the appellant Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3291 of 2022 dt.10-04-2025 5/6 under Section 482 of the Code. Considering the fact that the appellant herself claimed to be a victim of sexual assault, we do not think in the interest of justice, the proceeding against her ought to be continued. A sympathic approach ought to be adopted in a matter of this nature, where there can be certain element of overreaction from a traumatized victim. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and quash the order taking cognizance of offence qua the appellant. We are apprised that charge sheet has been submitted in the said case. The charge sheet, qua the appellant shall also stand quashed. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 10. The present petitioners had bona fidely accompanied the victim / co-accused in order to facilitate in the recording of her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as the victim was working as a domestic help in the house of the petitioners. They might have overreacted in the Court and for the same they should not be dealt with so harshly. Therefore, allowing the present criminal proceeding to continue against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 11. In view of the peculiar facts of this case and also the afore-quoted order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3291 of 2022 dt.10-04-2025 6/6 Court dated 02.02.2024 and in the interest of justice, this application is allowed. Accordingly, the cognizance order dated 22.09.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in Mahila P.S. Case No.61 of 2020 is hereby quashed. 12. The photocopy of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is taken on record. pawan/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 29.04.2025 Transmission Date 29.04.2025