Anandi Prasad vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 21 September, 2010

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 Cr.Misc. No.11026 of 2009
                ANANDI PRASAD SON OF LATE SHIBNANDAN YADAV,
                RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PACHLOBA, POLICE STATION
                ISLAMPUR, DISTRICT NALANDA                  ..... PETITIONER.
                                               Versus
                1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
                2. BABY DEVI WIFE OF UPENDRA YADAV
                3. SABITRI DEVI WIFE OF PRAKASH YADAV
                4. AWADHESH YADAV SON OF KAMESHWAR YADAV
                5. KAMALA YADAV SON OF KAMESHWAR YADAV
                6. NATHUN YADAV SON OF KAMESHWAR YADAV
                7. PAPU YADAV SON OF KAMALA YADAV
                8. JYOTI DEVI D/O RAJENDRA YADAV
                9. UPENDRA YADAV SON OF AWADHESH YADAV
                10. UMESH YADAV SON OF KULESHWAR YADAV
                11. BIRENDRA YADAV SON OF KULESHWAR YADAV
                12. RAKESH YADAV SON OF BUJHABAN YADAV
                13. BALI MAHTO SON OF BOUDHU MAHTO, ALL RESIDENT OF
                    VILLAGE PACHLOBA,
                14. AMIRAK YADAV SON OF GULAMAN YADAV
                15. PRABHANJAN YADAV SON OF AMIRAK YADAV, BOTH
                    RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARHARAPUR,
                16. RAJIV YADAV SON OF SURESH YADAV
                17. RAVI YADAV SON OF SURESH YADAV, BOTH RESIDENT OF
                    VILLAGE MAIDI KHURDA, ALL POLICE STATION ISLAMPUR,
                    DISTRICT NALANDA                     ..... OPP. PARTIES.
                                             -----------

2. 21.09.2010 The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated

23.2.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa

in Islampur P.S.case No.77 of 2006, by which he has accepted the

final report submitted by the opposite party nos.2 to 17 while taking

cognizance against others.

In my view, the order impugned does not call for any

interference and the revisional court has rightly held that Section

319 Cr.P.C. can be availed of by the petitioner at an appropriate

stage.

The application is dismissed.

Narendra/Ashwini ( Anjana Prakash, J. )