Ram Pravesh Rai And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43635 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -132 Year- 2009 Thana -BEGUSARAI TOWN District- BEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Ram Pravesh Rai son of Late Bhuneshwar Rai

2. Prem Kumar Rai son of Late Bhuneshwar Rai

3. Ram Sewak Rai son of Late Bhuneshwar Rai

4. Bipin Kumar Rai son of Surendra Rai All are residents of village Bahrampur Tola, Barua, P.S- Bachhwara, DisttBegusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kr.Singh-1 (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-07-2016 Four petitioners, who are accused in connection with Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 132 of 2009 registered for the offence under section 107, 120(B), 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code has approached this court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, II Adhoc, Begusarai. By the said order the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the Cr. Revision No. 109 of 2012. The revision was preferred against an order dated 19.1.2012 passed by Sri R.R. Raman, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Begusarai. The petitioners who are

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43635 of 2013 (3) dt.01-07-2016 2/2 accused at belated stage without any locus had filed a petition for amending the charge which was rejected by the learned Magistrate and thereafter revision was filed which too was rejected. The petitioners without any locus to file such petition for amending charge even after rejection of revision petition approached this court by filing the present petition. Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it appears that the present petition was purposely filed to delay conclusion of the trial. I am in complete agreement with the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, the petition outrightly stands rejected with an observation that if still trial is continuing, the learned court below is required to take all steps so that trial may come to its logical end preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. While proceeding with the trial the learned Magistrate is required to take up the matter at least twice in a week.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned court below forthwith.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T