High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Sunil Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 26 August, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Sunil Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 26 August, 2010
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                      CR. REV. No.400 of 2007
                  SUNIL KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE RAMCHARITRA SINGH
                                                             --- PETITIONER
                                         Versus
            1.    THE STATE OF BIHAR
            2.    SANTRAM SINGH S/O LATE MAHAVIR SINGH
            3.    PRAKASH SINGH S/O LATE MAHAVIR SINGH
            4.    PAWAN KUMAR @ PAWAN YADAV SON OF NOT KNOWN
            5.    RAM UDGAR PD. YADAV @ RAM UDGAR YADAV S/O NANNULAL
                  YADAV
            6.    MANOHAR YADAV SON OF NOT KNOWN
            7.    SANJAY KUMAR SON OF GIBU PD. YADAV.
                                                                    --- OPP.PARTIES.
                   For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Manbansh, Advocate.
                   For the O.Ps       : Mr. Amardeep, Advocate.
                   For the State      : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
                                                 -----------

06 26.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the

opposite parties.

Petitioner is the informant who ignited the present

criminal proceeding which gave rise to Trial no. 419 of 2006. The

accuseds ( opposite party nos. 2 to 7 herein) were charged under

Sections 420, 466, 467 and 468 of the Penal Code. Allegation is that

few sale deeds were executed by impersonating the informant and his

brother who was already dead. Trial ended in acquittal.

At the trial ten prosecution witnesses were examined.

PWs 1, 2 and 3 were tendered by the prosecution. PWs 6, 7, 8 and 10

in their respective depositions pleaded complete ignorance about the

case. Informant (P.W.5) in his deposition accepted that pursuant to the

aforesaid alienation the possession of the informant was not disturbed

relating to the land in question. It is also admitted that a Title Suit has

already been filed by him.

In the background of these facts emanating from the
record learned trial Court has passed the impugned order which, in my

view, does not suffer from any patent illegality. There is no merit in

this application.

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sym                                                  ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)