Baboo Lal Koeri v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.28301 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -185 Year- 2010 Thana -BUXAR MUFFSIL District- BUXAR ====================================================== Baboo Lal Koeri son of Late Shivyogi Singh Resident Of Village Nadaon, P.S. Buxar (M), District Buxar.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. Usha Devi wife of Late Anuj Kumar Dubey Resident Of Village Nadaon, P.S. Buxar (M), District Buxar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagdish Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Smt.Nirmala Kumari (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-04-2016 Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Nirmala Kumari, learned A.P.P. The sole petitioner, has prayed in the present petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of an order dated 25.4.2013 passed by learned Adhoc Additional District Judge 1st , Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 2011 (arising out of Buxar (M) P.S. Case No. 185 of 2010) registered for the offence under Section 302/ 379/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said order the learned court below has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28301 of 2013 (2) dt.29-04-2016 2/2 court that petitioner was maliciously implicated in the present case. He submits that only after change of investigating officer petitioner's name was brought in the case. He submits that petitioner had earlier raised slogan against the Police and as such maliciously petitioner was made accused. He further submits that the witnesses who were examined by the earlier Investigating Officer had taken U -turn and in subsequent statement they have implicated the petitioner.
Besides hearing, I have perused the materials available on record particularly the impugned order. After going through the impugned order apparently I do not find any ground for interference.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T