Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29736/2014dismissed

Gulvi Devi v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-09-11Mr. Justice Arun Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29736 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3 Year- 2013 Thana -GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District- GAYA =========================================================== Gulvi Devi, wife of Sri Ram Keshwar Mistry, Resident of Village-Birhut, P.O.- Kurmawa, P.S.-Cherki (Bodh Gaya), District-Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Bachan Prajapat, Son of Late Karghani Prajapat, Resident of Village-Kachauri Tola Janakpur, P.O.-Kachauri, P.S.-Sherghat, District-Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate. Mr. Mukesh Jee, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 1, APP. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner is one of the accused in Complaint Case No. 03 of 2013. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-cumAdditional Munsif, Sherghati (Gaya) by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 323,341 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific allegation is levelled against the petitioner in the entire complaint except naming her in the accused column. There is land dispute between both sides, therefore, this false case was lodged

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29736 of 2014 dt.11-09-2017 2/2 against the petitioner who is a lady.

4. Contrary to the said submission, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner is named in the complaint petition and there is general allegation against all accused, however, during course of enquiry witnesses have stated that this petitioner also assaulted.

5. Having considered the rival submissions of both sides and on perusal of material on record, it is not that prima facie no offence is disclosed against the petitioner, so this quashing application stands dismissed.

(Arun Kumar, J) Sujit/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 13.09.2017 Transmission Date 13.09.2017