High Court Patna High Court

Nageshwar Pratap Narain Singh vs State Of Bihar on 6 September, 2010

Patna High Court
Nageshwar Pratap Narain Singh vs State Of Bihar on 6 September, 2010
Author: Rakesh Kumar
                        CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4867 OF 2003

                     In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of
                     Criminal Procedure
                                               ------------

Nageshwar Pratap Narain Singh, Son of Late Pashupateswar
Narain Singh, resident of Mohalla- Kalambagh Chowk, Police
Station-Kazi Mohammadpur and District- Muzaffarpur

——————— Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ———– Opp.Party.

—————-

For the petitioner: S/Sri Akhileshwar Pd.Singh &
Partha Sarthy, Advocates
For the State: Smt. Indua Bala Pandey, A.P.P.

————–

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR

Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing

of an order dated 26.11.2002 passed by Sri N.P.Singh, learned Sub Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Sitamarhi in Trial No.858 of 2002. By the said

order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf

of the petitioner.

2. Short fact of the case is that on the date of Assembly Election two

cars; one Maruti Van and another Santro Car were apprehended by the police

and from both the vehicles six persons were arrested on the charge that from

Maruti Van illegal arms and ammunitions were recovered and, as such, an

F.I.R. vide Bathnaha P.S. Case No.9 of 2000 was registered under Sections

25(1-B) a, 26 and 35 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigating the case,

police submitted chargesheet under the provisions of the Arms Act as well as
2

under Section 134B of the Representation of People Act. Subsequently, order

of cognizance was passed and at the stage of charge, discharge petition was

filed on behalf of the petitioner and other accused persons. The learned Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Sitamarhi by its order dated 26.11.2002

rejected the discharge petition.

3. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, the

petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition.

4. Sri Akhileshwar Pd.Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order, submits that on the

ground of vicarious liability the petitioner cannot be prosecuted. It was

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle, from which

the petitioner was arrested, no arms and ammunitions were recovered and, as

such, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offences under the Arms Act

and on this ground alone, it has been prayed to quash the order of rejection of

discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner.

5. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing

on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It

was submitted that the occupants of both the vehicles were associates of a

particular candidate, namely, Rajesh Mishra, who was contesting the election

on the Party Ticket of “Ajay Bharat” and the petitioner, who was one of the

supporters of Rajesh Mishra , were arrested from the Santro Car . Accordingly,

during the investigation it was found that the petitioner had atleast committed

offence under Section 134B of the Representation of People Act. It was further

submitted that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Sitamarhi

after assigning a detailed reason has rejected the discharge petition.

Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the present petition.
3

6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also

perused the materials available on record, particularly the impugned order. At

the time of hearing on discharge petition, of course, it was not required to

assign a detailed reason, while refusing to accept the prayer for discharge but

the learned Magistrate has discussed in detail the material, which was collected

during the investigation. I do not find any defect in the order of rejection of

discharge petition.

7. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. In view of rejection of

the present petition, interim order of stay dated 1.3.2004 stands automatically

vacated.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below.

( Rakesh Kumar, J.)
Patna High Court,Patna
Dated : the 6th September,2010
Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R.