Karmdeo Singh And ORS. v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13635 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-686 Year-2010 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== 1.

Karmdeo Singh, Son of Late Jayram Singh 2.

Kewalapati Devi @ Kelapati Devi, wife of Karmdeo Singh 3.

Vikas Singh @ Bablu @ Bablu Singh, Son of Karmdeo Singh 4.

Sonu Singh, son of Karmdeo Singh 5.

Gudiya, Daughter of Karmdeo Singh All are residents of village- Senuar, P.S.- Kargahar, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Usha Devi, wife of Rajesh Singh @ Dablu and Daughter of Subash Singh, Resident of village- Baraon, P.S.- Nokha, District- Rohtas ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad- APP Mr. Subash Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-09-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and learned APP for the State.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present quashing application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Sasaram, Rohtas in Complaint Case No.686 of 2010, Tr. No.632 of 2016, whereby the learned S.D.J.M., Sasaram has rejected the petition dated 21.05.2015 filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking discharge under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13635 of 2016(2) dt.05-09-2023 2/2

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly, at the outset, submits that charges have been framed. It is next submitted that though charges have been framed, but till date, not a single witness has appeared.

4. The learned Additional P. P. submits that since charges have been framed that signifies commencement of the trial.

5. In view of the submissions made by the learned Additional P. P., the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order by which discharge application of the petitioners has been rejected.

6. Thus, the quashing application is dismissed.

7. However, the learned trial Court is directed to ensure that the trial is completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T