IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.52200 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -711 Year- 2014 Thana -KHAZANIHAT District- PURNIA
Anurag Thakur Son of Sri Gajendra Kishore Thakur, Resident of Mohallah
– Korathbari (Madhubani), P.S. – K. Hat (Madhubani), District- Purnea.
…. …. Petitioner
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Dilip Kumar Jha Son of Late Digamber Jha, Resident of Mohallah –
Sukh Nagar, P.S. – K. Hat (Madhubani), District- Purnea.
…. …. Opposite Party
For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma,Sr. Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Anand
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari (App)
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
2 23-11-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned Counsel for the State.
The petitioner seeks quashing of the cognizance order
dated 28.10.2014 passed by learned lst Additional Sessions Judge,
Purnea in Special Case No. 32 of 2014, thereby taking cognizance of
the offence under Sections 354, 506 and 34 of the IPC as well as
Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
The brief fact giving rise to the case is that the informant
Dilip Kumar Jha in the written report submitted to the police alleged
that the petitioner used to tease his daughter and used filthy language
while she goes to the school and the coaching institute to attend her
classes and also threatened to kidnap her and he is continuously doing
it for the last six months.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no prima
facie case for the offence under which cognizance has been taken is
made out even taking into consideration entire allegations levelled in
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.52200 of 2014 (2) dt.23-11-2017 2
the written information as true. In order to attract offence under
Section 354 IPC there must be allegation of use of criminal force or
assault to the woman for the purpose of outraging the modesty and
emphasized that taking cognizance is a serious matter and the person
should not be put to face any criminal proceeding or trial without any
Having considered the submission of both sides and on
perusal of the record the court finds that the allegation is that while the
informant’s minor daughter used to go to her school and coaching
institute on the way the accused persons used to make filthy comments
and teased her and besides that also threatened to kidnap her. It is not
that no offence is disclosed from the allegations made in the FIR rather
it makes out a prima facie case of sexual harassment as defined in
Section 354A, also of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the
IPC and under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act. So it is not that no offence is made out, hence the
cognizance order is not interfered with.
The application stands dismissed.
(Arun Kumar, J.)