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
Versus
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

Appearance :
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
ORAL ORDER

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

material.

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.)
Snkumar/-

U T