← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19152/2016dismissed

Ranjit Singh @ Bhaglu Singh And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2023-09-11Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19152 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-439 Year-2009 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== 1.

Ranjit Singh @ Bhaglu Singh, son of Kamta Singh 2.

Guddu Singh son of Kedar Singh 3.

Kamta Singh son of late Basawan Singh 4.

Kedar Singh son of Late Basawan Singh All residents of Village Dhanawan English, P.S. Nasriganj, District Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Sanmukha Devi wife of Bangali Choudhary resident of village Dhanaw English, P.S. Nasariganj, District Rohtas.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-09-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State.

2. On query of the Court with regard to the stage of the case, presently it has been fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the discharge application of the petitioners were rejected, thereafter charges have been framed.

3. The learned APP Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad submits that the moment charges stand framed, it signifies commencement of the trial, on which the learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19152 of 2016(2) dt.11-09-2023 2/2 petitioners submit that though has commenced but not a single witness from 2015 till date has been produced on behalf of the prosecution.

4. It is next submitted that dispute appears to be civil in nature. Since the trial has commenced as such the Court is not inclined to entertain the present quashing application wherein the order seeking discharge is under challenge.

5. Accordingly, the quashing application is dismissed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Prakash Narayan U T