High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Gangai Kamat @ Ganagi Kamti & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 18 August, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Gangai Kamat @ Ganagi Kamti & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 18 August, 2011
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             Criminal Miscellaneous No.48308 of 2008
                     1. Gangai Kamat @ Ganagi Kamti son of Panchu Kamat.
                     2. Tripura Devi daughter of Gangat Kamat @ Gangai Kamti
                     3. Maha Dev Kamat son of Gangai Kamat @ Gangai Kamti
                     4. Raj Kishore Kamat son of Asharfi Kamat
                     5. Asharfi Kamat son of Madan Kamat
                     6. Yogendra Kamat son of Baidh Nath Kamat.
                     7. Ravindra Kamat son of Baidha Nath Kamat.
                     8. Lilai Kamat son of Anup Kamat
                     9.Bhuwar Kamat son of Lilai Kamat
                     10. Baidh Nath Kamat, son of Kanak Kamat.
                     11. Bhogendra Kamat son of Baidh Nath Kamat, all are
                     residents ofVillage Mangar Patti, P.S. Raj Nagar, District
                     Madhubani.                               .......Petitioners.
                                             Versus
                 1. The State Of Bihar
                 2. Bipin Choudhary son of Sajjan Choudhary, R/o village Mangar
                     Patti, P.S. Raj Nagar, District Madhubani....Opposite Parties.

                                 ----------------------------------

2 18.08.2011 The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been filed for quashing the order dated 11.08.2008 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-V,

Madhubani, in Cri. Revision No. 260 of 2008, whereby the

learned court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the

accused petitioners affirming the cognizance order passed by the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani on 17.02.2008 in G.R.

Case No. 562 of 2006 in which cognizance has been taken under

sections 147, 341,323, 452, 307 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

From the perusal of the impugned order it appears

that on the basis of evidence recorded in the case diary in

paragraph1, 4,6,7,8 and 10 and the injury report of injured

Parveen Kumar , the offence has been made in which

cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate. There is nothing in the impugned order to about the
2

misuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice.

In the facts and circumstances of the case , I do not

find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

M.Rahman