IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17018 of 2008 MAHENDRA DAS son of late Lal Das, resident of village-Muzaffarpur, P.S.-Noor Sarai, District- Nalanda. ..... .....Petitioner Versus 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
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
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.)