Niraj Srivastav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16834 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-201 Year-2013 Thana- KAHALGAON District- Bhagalpur ======================================================
1. Niraj Srivastav, son of Hari Kishore Prasad Srivastav
2. Hari Kishore Prasad Srivastav, son of Late Rasbihari Prasad Srivastav Both resident of Village-Agarapara, P.O.-Kharota, District-Uttar 24 Pargana (Kolkata-38), West Bengal ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Akhilesh Kumar Verma, son of Rajendra Prasad Verma, resident of Vikramsila Nagar, P.S.-Kahalgaon, District-Bhagalpur
3. Sunil Kumar Mishra, son of Late Girja Nandan Mishra, resident of Pakartalla, P.S.-Kahalgaon, District-Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
None For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. G.S. Gupta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-05-2019 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners.
However, learned advocate for the State is present. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.01.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in Trial No. 3931 of 2014, arising out of Kahalgaon P.S. Case No. 201 of 2013 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is not at all aware about the stage
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16834 of 2015(2) dt.16-05-2019 2/2 of the case.
In any view of the matter, after going through the order impugned and the materials brought forth on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of cognizance.
However, if the petitioners have not already preferred a petition for discharge, they may do so before the Court below, in which event, the Court below shall look into the entire set of facts and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the fact that the present petition has not been entertained. In the event of the trial having been proceeded, this Court can only direct the Trial Court to conclude the trial as early as possible.
The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Shageer/- U T