Posted On by &filed under High Court, Patna High Court - Orders.

Patna High Court – Orders
Mahendra Das vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 2 July, 2010
                                   Cr.Misc. No.17018 of 2008
                   MAHENDRA DAS son of late Lal Das, resident
                   of village-Muzaffarpur, P.S.-Noor Sarai,
                   District- Nalanda.          .....  .....Petitioner
                  1.THE STATE OF BIHAR
                  2.Sagar Ravidas son of Banke Ravidas,
                    resident of village-Mahamadpur, P.S.-
                    Asthawa, Dist.-Nalanda .....        ....Opp.Parties.

2. 2.7.2010. Heard Mr. Nand Kumar Singh, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A.M.P. Mehta,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent

jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, has prayed for quashing of an order which was

passed long back on 22.11.2005 by Chief Judicial Maagistrate,

Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Asthawan P.S. Case No.173 of 2005.

By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of

the offences under sections 341, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the

present petition, submits that it was a dispute between father-in-

law and son-in-law. The petitioner is father-in-law and allegation

against him is that he fired on his son-in-law. It was submitted that

during investigation the informant had filed a petition vide

annexure-3 to the petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bihar Sharif, Nalanda, wherein he had indicated that he had not

given fardbeyan as recorded by the police and he has not alleged

that his father-in-law had fired on him. On this ground he has

prayed to quash the order of cognizance.

Mr.A.M.P. Mehta, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State, has opposed the prayer of

the petitioner.

Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have

perused the impugned order, First Information Report as well as

materials available on the record. In this case there was specific

allegation against the petitioner in the first information report

which was lodged for the offences under sections, 341 and 307/34

of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. After

registering the first information report, the police investigated the

same and, thereafter, charge sheet was submitted and the learned

Magistrate after examining the materials on record has passed the

order of cognizance long back on 22.11.2005. To the reasons best

known to the petitioner, he has filed the present petition on

28.4.2008 after about two and half years of the order of

cognizance. So far as plea in respect of annexure-3 that the

informant had filed a petition before the Magistrate is concerned, I

am of the view that at this stage such petition has got no relevance.

Accordingly, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the

impugned order.

I do not find any defect in the impugned order and the

petition stands rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the court

that in this case till date charge has not been framed. Keeping in

view the fact that the order of cognizance was passed in the year

2005, as informed, and no charge has been framed till date, it is

necessary to direct the court below to expedite the case and

conclude the same as early as possible.

Md.S.                                     ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.165 seconds.