Court holds two-month delay in lodging FIR not extraordinary; Subsequent marriage of informant with witness held immaterial; Bhajan Lal principles applied to reject quashing plea.
In a significant judgment dated October 1, 2026, the Patna High Court, presided over by Mr. Chandra Shekhar Jha, J., dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of cognizance in a gang rape case registered under Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 240/2018. The petitioner, Kamal Kishore @ Chuha, challenged the order dated November 27, 2018, by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Patna, which had taken cognizance under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The prosecution case involved an allegation that the informant was gang-raped by four to five persons while she was en route to her maternal uncle's home. The informant identified the accused by names during the incident, which were later confirmed by Ramayan Manjhi, a person known to her who was present nearby. The petitioner contended that the FIR was defective as it did not specify the time and date of the occurrence, that there was an inordinate delay of two months in lodging the FIR, and that the names of the accused were disclosed through Ramayan Manjhi, who subsequently married the informant, thereby casting doubt on the credibility of the prosecution case.
The Court, after hearing the submissions of both parties, observed that a delay of two months in lodging the FIR in a gang rape case is not so extraordinary as to disbelieve the entire occurrence at the threshold. Moreover, the subsequent marriage of the informant with Ramayan Manjhi, who was known to her prior to the incident, was deemed immaterial to the merits of the prosecution case. The Court relied on the well-established principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), which restrict the High Court's power to quash proceedings to exceptional circumstances.
Since the investigation had been completed and a charge-sheet filed, and the allegations disclosed commission of serious offences, the Court held that the trial court's order taking cognizance was neither illegal nor unsustainable. Therefore, the petition for quashing the cognizance order was dismissed, allowing the trial to proceed.
This judgment reinforces the principle that delays in lodging FIRs, especially in sensitive cases such as gang rape, must be examined with circumspection, and subsequent relationships between witnesses do not automatically vitiate the prosecution's case. The Court's refusal to interfere at the cognizance stage emphasizes the need to allow the trial courts to examine evidence and merits of the case thoroughly.
Bottom Line:
Quashing of cognizance in gang rape case declined - Delay of two months in lodging FIR in such case not so extraordinary as to disbelieve prosecution case at threshold - Subsequent marriage of informant with person who disclosed names of accused held immaterial - Cognizance order not falling within Bhajan Lal principles.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 376D IPC, Section 3(2)(va) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 67 Information Technology Act, 2000
Kamal Kishore @ Chuha v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2993451
