IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60254 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2022 Thana- Mufassil District- Khagaria ====================================================== Sonu Kumar S/o Sunil Prasad Singh Resident of Village- Bhadas, PS- Khagaria Muffasil, District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR CAV ORDER 3 08-04-2026 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Court of POCSO, Khagaria, in POCSO Case No. 31A of 2022, arising out of Khagaria Mufassil P.S. Case No. 226 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the victim for re-examination has been dismissed. 2. Initially, a complaint case came to be filed, which was sent to the police station under the provisions of 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration as the First Information Report, upon which Khagaria Mufassil P.S. Case No. 226 of 2022 was registered under Sections 366(A), 370(A), 372, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short). Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60254 of 2025(3) dt.08-04-2026 2/6 3. As per the allegation, the daughter of the informant, who happens to be the victim, aged 15 years and 9 months, after completing her matriculation had gone to pursue her intermediate education and used to stay at the house of one Sunil Kumar Singh, who happens to be the relative of the informant. In the year 2021, the said Sunil Kumar Singh and his wife Vibha Devi took the victim to their house so as to get facilitate her intermediate education. The victim remained at their house for six months. After six months, the victim returned to the house of the informant and she used to be under pressure. Upon being asked, she used to keep mum. It is further alleged that Sunil Kumar Singh and Vibha Devi used to call the informant on telephone that the education of the victim is being hampered and hence they would be sending their son soon to the house of the informant and requested him to send the victim to their house. It is further alleged that on 23.11.2021, Sonu Kumar, son of Sunil Kumar Singh and Vibha Devi, petitioner herein, came to the house of the informant and talked to the victim alone and thereafter the victim left with Sonu Kumar. It is alleged that Sunil Kumar Singh facilitated the talk with the victim to the informant, but after 28.11.2021, though the informant requested to talk to the victim to Sunil Kumar Singh, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60254 of 2025(3) dt.08-04-2026 3/6 Vibha Devi, Sonu Kumar and Gulshan Kumar (another son of Sunil Kumar Singh and Vibha Devi), but victim was not called to talk on mobile and evasive reply was given. After 20-25 days, when the informant went to the house of Sunil Kumar Singh to meet the victim, he did not find her there. Upon query from all the aforesaid persons, they stated that the victim had gone to Kolkata to give examination and would be returning in another ten days, but even after passage of several days, the aforesaid persons gave evasive reply on one pretext or the other. The informant accepted the words of the aforesaid persons as they happened to be his relatives. There was talk in the village and amongst the relatives that the victim was subjected to physical assault (rape) by Sonu Kumar and Gulshan Kumar and video to this effect was made and she was forced into prostitution in order to earn money. When the aforesaid persons got the apprehension that their misdeeds would be known to all, they sold the victim in Kolkata for prostitution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 311 Cr.P.C. application was filed, which is annexed as Annexure-7, which reads as follows: - “U;k;ky;] Jheku~ vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh”k&’k’Ve &lg&fo”ks’k U;k;k/kh”k&iksLdks vf/k0 [kxfM+;kA Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60254 of 2025(3) dt.08-04-2026 4/6 iksLdks okn la0&31, 0@2022 [kxfM+;k eqQfly Fkkuk dkaM la0&226@2022 jkT; cuke~ lksuq dqekj -----------------------------------------------------------------------vfHk;qDr vkosnu feu tkfuc vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls na0iz0la0 dh /kkjk &311 ds vUrxZr lkf{k;ksa dk iqu% ijh{k.k gsrq & egk”k;] izkFkZuk gS fd& 1- ;g fd] mijksDr of.kZr okn esa fnukad&09-02-2024 dks nksuksa i{kdkj lwpd ,oa vfHk;qDr esa le>kSrk lEiUu gks x;k gSA 2- ;g fd] okn ds mHk; i{kksa ds chp lEiUu le>kSrk vkosnu fnukad&09-02-2024 dks Jheku~ ds U;k;ky; esa lefiZr gSA 3- ;g fd] bl okn ls iwoZ okn esa lwpd ,oa ihfM+rk dk C;ku ,oa vU; xokgu dk C;ku Jheku ds U;k;ky; esa ntZ fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq mDr fnukad&09-02-2024 ds le>kSrk vkosnu ds vkyksd esa iqu% okn ds lwpd ,oa ihfM+rk dk C;ku U;k;ky; esa ntZ fd;k tkuk U;k;fgr esa vfr vko”;d gSA vr% Jheku~ ls izkFkZuk gS fd mijksDr of.kZr okn esa lwpd ,oa ihfM+rk ds iqu% ijh{k.k ,oa izfrijh{k.k gsrq vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls nkf[ky na0iz0la0 dh /kkjk&311 vaUrxZr bl fjdkWy vkosnu dks Lohd`r djrs gq, okn ds lwpd ,oa ihfM+rk dks iqu% lEeu fuxZr djus gsrq vkns”k nsus dh d`ik dh tk; fd vfHk;qDr Jheku~ dk lnSo vkHkkjh cuk jgsxkA }kjk izsf’kr%& g0@& vf/koDrkA fnukad&11@03@24” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that since the parties have compromised their case, the victim be recalled and question in this regard be asked from her. It is further submitted that the compromise petition dated Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60254 of 2025(3) dt.08-04-2026 5/6 09.02.2024 has been annexed with this application as Annexure- 5. 6. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner has submitted that this application is nothing but to fill up the lacuna in this case and the ground on which Section 311 Cr.P.C. application was filed is not a valid ground. Moreover, compromise petition was filed in this case, the case being under Sections 366(A), 370(A), 372, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, which are serious in nature, non-compoundable and it amounts to tampering with the evidence when the victim has adduced her evidence in the court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. The case was registered under Sections 366(A), 370(A), 372, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act and cognizance was taken against the petitioner and the victim has adduced her evidence in the court, thereafter when her evidence was concluded, then the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on 09.02.2024 although the offences were not compoundable. Moreover, there are serious allegations against the petitioner to have committed rape upon Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60254 of 2025(3) dt.08-04-2026 6/6 the victim and also forced her into prostitution. The petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is nothing but to recall the victim for her cross-examination on the point of compromise. The same cannot be permitted as the very ground is not tenable as the offence is not compoundable. 9. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted with the impugned order. 10. This application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pawan/- (Praveen Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 24.03.2026. Uploading Date 08.04.2026. Transmission Date 08.04.2026.