The Sections Punish Resisting An Arrest. There Was No Such Allegation.
A doctor at a district hospital was made an accused in a case about an under-trial prisoner. The provisions charged had nothing to do with what he was said to have done.
The Court held the ingredients of the two sections are not at all attracted, there being no allegation that the petitioner caused any obstruction or put up any resistance to the lawful apprehension of the under-trial prisoner. The proceeding appeared to be the outcome of total non-application of judicial mind, and the order taking cognizance under Sections 224, 225 and 120B was quashed so far as he is concerned.
- Read the section against the allegation. These punish resisting or obstructing apprehension — nothing of the sort was alleged.
- Cognizance was taken in 2013, on a case from 2009, and quashed in 2026.
- Quashed qua the petitioner only; the case against others is untouched.
- No cogent, credible and legally tenable evidence was before the Magistrate.
- Court
- High Court of Judicature at Patna
- Bench
- Justice MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
- Citation
- Criminal Miscellaneous No. 53459 of 2016
- Case
- Criminal Miscellaneous No. 53459 of 2016
- Decided
- 3 September 2026
- Outcome
- Application allowed; cognizance quashed as against the petitioner
Why the sections did not fit
The provisions in question concern resistance or obstruction to the lawful apprehension of a person.
Their ingredients are not at all attracted in the present case, where the petitioner has been sought to be implicated although there was no allegation against him of causing any obstruction or putting up any resistance with respect to the lawful apprehension of the under-trial prisoner.
The order
On the factual and legal position, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner appears to be the outcome of total non-application of judicial mind on the part of the trial court, which in the absence of any cogent, credible and legally tenable evidence took cognizance of offences that are not attracted against him.
The order of 23 May 2013 taking cognizance under Sections 224, 225 and 120B of the Penal Code was quashed and set aside so far as the petitioner is concerned, and all criminal proceedings emanating from it against him quashed as well.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
What do Sections 224 and 225 punish?
Resistance or obstruction to the lawful apprehension of a person. Neither was alleged against this petitioner.
Does the case end for everyone?
No. The cognizance was quashed only as against the petitioner.
Testing whether the section charged fits the allegation
- Set the ingredients of each section beside the specific words of the allegation against your client.
- Where a section requires an act — obstruction, resistance — show that no such act is even alleged.
- Seek relief confined to your client where co-accused are differently placed.
- Point to the age of the cognizance order; long-pending proceedings on a bad footing are the clearest candidates.
Source. High Court of Judicature at Patna, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 53459 of 2016, decided 3 September 2026 by Justice MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Judicature at Patna and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in