Dilip Thakur v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 45330 of 2013 ====================================================== Dilip Thakur S/O Late Ram Swaroop Thakur Resident of VillageSikhargarh Tola, P.O and P.S- Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rajesh Kumar Verma S/O Kanhaiya Lal Verma Resident of VillageSikhargarh, P.O and P.S- Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J.Upadhyay (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4.

04-07-2016 Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of an order dated 12-09-2013 passed in Kahalgaon P.S. Case No. 119 of 2012 (G.R. No. 1074 of 2012) by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhagalpur. By the said order, the petition filed on behalf of petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition mainly on the ground that in this case, earlier cognizance order was passed by

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45330 of 2013 (4) dt.04-07-2016 2/2 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. He further submits that though the F.I.R. was lodged for offence under Sections 341, 323, 379, 327, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, police after investigation submitted chargesheet under Sections 341, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code only, however; the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, differing with the police report, had taken cognizance for offences, which were not mentioned by the police i.e. Sections 379 and 387 of the I.P.C. However, learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing has accepted that order of cognizance was never assailed by the petitioner. Moreover, on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate has noticed case diary also, in which, witnesses had supported the prosecution case. I do not find any apparent error in the impugned order warranting interference.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T