IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.22559 of 2008
1. Baleshwar Prasad Sharma, son of Late Ram Sewak
Singh.
2. Akhileshwar Sharma, son of Sri Baleshwar Prasad
Sharma.
3. Kameshwar Singh, son of Late Mohan Singh.
4. Umesh Singh, son of Late Jamuna Singh.
5. Uday Sharma, son of Late Jamuna Singh.
6. Suryakant Sharma, son of Kameshwar Singh.
All of Village-Abhranchak, P.S. Naubatpur, District-
Patna.
7. Binay Sharma, son of Late Lakshman Singh of village-
Charra, P.S. Naubatpur, District-Patna.
........................................................Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. Ram Pravesh Singh, son of Late Beni Singh, resident
of village-Abrhanchak, P.S. Naubatpur, District-
Patna.
.............................................Opposite Parties.
----------------------------------
3. 17.10.2011. Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh No.1, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, learned
A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2.
This application, under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, is for quashing the order dated 27.5.2008
passed by the court of Sri Lalta Prasad, Judicial Magistrate,
Ist Class, Danapur, in Complaint Case No.451(C) of 2006,
whereby the petition of the accused-petitioners, filed under
2
Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge
them, has been rejected.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that from perusal of the depositions of the
witnesses as contained in Annexure-‘6’ series to this
application, no offence under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 148
of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused-
petitioners, but the Judicial Magistrate, has rejected illegally
the petition filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners to
discharge them under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party no.2 submits that in this case charges have already been
framed by the trial court and almost all the witnesses have
been examined.
It appears from the impugned order dated 27.5.2008
passed in Complaint Case No.451(C) of 2006 that on going
through the depositions of the three witnesses, examined
before the charge, the learned Judicial Magistrate, has come
to the conclusion that there is sufficient material against the
accused-petitioners for framing the charge and, accordingly,
rejected the petition filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners
3
under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
discharge them.
I find no illegality in the impugned order dated
27.5.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,
Danapur, in Complaint Case No.451(C) of 2006, to interfere
with the same in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)
P.S.